Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Stockton-on-Tees) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

NINE POWER TREATY.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the British Government by any of the signatories to the Nine Power Treaty relating to China, to the effect that the same has been violated; and, if so, will he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The bearing of the Nine Power Treaty, as well as of the Covenant of the League and the Pact of Paris of 1928, on Sino-Japanese relations was the subject of discussion between the signatories generally during the course of the Sino-Japanese dispute regarding Manchuria between September, 1931, and February, 1933. Apart from this I am not aware of any specific representations to His Majesty's Government of the kind mentioned in the hon. Member's question by any of the signatory Powers.

Mr. DAY: Has any action been taken following the discussions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. EDEN: There have not been any representations of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member and so there cannot have been any action on them.

Mr. DAY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that there were some discussions on Manchuria?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I should weary the House if I were to give an account of the Manchurian dispute.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has drawn the attention of the Japanese Government to the serious consequences to legitimate trade of the extensive smuggling of Japanese goods into China from Dairen through the autonomous area of East Hopei in the demilitarized zone; and whether he will represent to the Japanese Ambassador that the continuance of this practice must lead to a demand for discrimination against Japanese goods in other parts of the world;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the action of the East Hopei autonomous Government in lowering the tariff on imports from Dairen has permitted the smuggling into the rest of China of large quantities of merchandise and that the new preventive methods adopted by the Tientsin Customs have been largely nullified in consequence; and what steps he is taking to secure that British loans secured on the Chinese Customs are riot placed in jeopardy by an extension of these practices;
(3) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the proper collection of the Chinese Customs revenue upon which British and other foreign loans are secured is being imperilled by the extensive smuggling of Japanese goods through the demilitarised zone and the Hopei-Chahar autonomous area; by how much the revenue of the Tientsin Customs was reduced in consequence in the month of March; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the security of the British loans affected?

Mr. EDEN: The serious growth of smuggling in North China has been engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government for some time past, and has already formed the subject of representations both to the Chinese and Japanese Governments. In view, however, of the recent deterioration in the position and of the reduction in duty levied on goods entering North China via the demilitarised zone, His Majesty's Government are at present actively considering what further steps can be taken to safe-


guard British trade in that area and to ensure that the security for the foreign loan services will not be endangered. Beyond what has appeared in the Press, I have no information regarding the loss to the Chinese Customs revenue occasioned by this development, but a full report on the situation is on its way from His Majesty's Embassy in China.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these steps will be decided?

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question in about a week's time.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government propose to take any action with a view to supplying to Abyssinia, either through the League of Nations or the Red Cross, gas masks, chemical materials for the treatment of gas-inflicted wounds, or to send a technical medical mission, in view of the suffering caused by Italian gas attacks made in breach of treaty engagements?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that appropriate medical supplies for the treatment of sufferers, or funds for their purchase, are being forwarded to Abyssinia by various societies and private organisations in this country. I need hardly add that humanitarian efforts of this description have the warm approval of His Majesty's Government.

Miss RATHBONE: Has the right hon. Gentleman reason to believe that the amounts collected in connection with these matters would have served this purpose; and will he consider whether some of the profits made by the Government on Anglo-Iranian oil shares might not suitably be devoted to the purpose?

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the position carefully and if there is any lack of adequate supplies, will he see whether the Government cannot do something?

Mr. EDEN: We have been interesting ourselves in this matter and have been in touch with these organisations.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the

British Government are prepared to propose at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations action to prevent the passage of poison gas through the Suez Canal to be used, in breach of treaty engagements, against the population, civil and military, of Abyssinia by the Italian forces?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).

Mr. MANDER: But surely the Government are not going to be content with merely drawing the dividends on the carriage of poison gas through the Suez Canal? Surely, they are going to do a great deal more than that?

Mr. EDEN: There is a question about that on the Paper.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the Government not use the extra amount which they are receiving for the carriage of poison gas to buy gas masks for the Abyssinians?

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether chemicals necessary for the production of poison gas borne on ships passing through the Suez Canal are subject to a charge; and, if so, what is the revenue of the Suez Canal Company from this source since the commencement of the Italo-Abyssinian war?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that Canal dues are assessed by the Suez Canal Company on the tonnage of the vessel passing through the Canal, whether laden or in ballast, and not on the goods carried. I regret therefore that the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is not available.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: What is the purpose, then, of asking what specific goods are carried? There must be some purpose in obtaining that information.

Mr. LEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount of profit has accrued to the Government by reason of the heavy increase in Italian ships passing through the Canal?

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the restrictions on transport of munitions for the Abyssinian forces on the Jibuti


railway; and whether there have been any communications between the Abyssinian and French Governments on this matter, or between His Majesty's Government and the French Government, in view of the fact that such restriction is contrary to the terms of the 1930 Treaty between Abyssinia, France, Great Britain and Italy?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the French authorities at Jibuti have not forwarded to their destination two small consignments of arms ordered by the Abyssinian Government and shipped from German ports. No communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the French Government on this subject, but I cannot say whether there have been any between France and Abyssinia.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: As we are pledged by the Treaty of 1930 to see that Abyssinia receives the arms necessary for her defence, is it not the duty of the Government to investigate the position and to see that they are getting the necessary supplies?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, I am sure, the fact that there is a practical as well as a legal side to this question. In fact, Abyssinia has been receiving certain supplies along this railway, whereas her other communications have been cut. I think the matter might be left to the Abyssinian Government.

Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand from the reply, that apart from these two small shipments, the French Government have been allowing the passage of munitions along this railway to Abyssinia all the time?

Mr. EDEN: No, I would not care to make that deduction.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not a fact that every possible obstacle has been placed in the way of munitions travelling up to this area?

Mr. EDEN: That does not apply to British territories.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: As we are signatories of the Treaty of 1930, which undertakes that the Abyssinians shall receive the amount of munitions necessary for the defence of that country, is it

not our duty to investigate the position and to see that they receive the supplies?

Mr. EDEN: What I suggested that my hon. and gallant Friend should consider was whether his suggestion is in the interests of Abyssinia.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many labourers have been recruited from Malta for service with the Italian Army in East Africa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as can be ascertained, none have been recruited.

REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will continue to support the Convention regarding the international status of refugees, passed at Geneva on 28th October, 1933?

Mr. EDEN: The position in regard to this Convention has not changed since the date of the reply returned by my Noble Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. - Commander Fletcher) on 30th March, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, and to which I can add nothing for the present.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence at Geneva to oppose any suggestion of abandonment of the refugees by the League?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that this Convention covers the problem as a whole and that we have to consider it very carefully.

ESPIONAGE CHARGES (EXCHANGE OF NATIONALS).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements are made by his Department to endeavour to negotiate an exchange between any British national who is held on a charge of espionage in a foreign country and a national of that country who is held in this country on a similar charge?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (WAGES RATES).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the result of the inquiry by his inspector into the wage rates paid by Jamieson and Company, Riversdale Street, Glasgow, who are on the Admiralty list; what wages are paid to lads taking up work with the firm, the annual increments being paid in such cases; whether all workers with five years' service or more are being paid the full journeyman's rate of wages on the standard recognised by the trade union concerned; and whether he is assured that trade union conditions are being fully observed?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The promised inquiry into the wages rates paid by Messrs. Jamieson and Company has now been made and shows that the firm are satisfying the requirements of the Fair Wages Clause. They are, therefore, eligible in every way to receive Admiralty contracts which are within their capacity. It would be contrary to Admiralty practice to disclose the actual wages paid, but I may say, however, that the suggestion in the hon. Member's question of 12th March that boys of 16 years of age were being paid 9s. per week is not confirmed. Under trade union conditions, the practice is to pay full journeyman's rates after six years' apprenticeship, not after five years as stated by the hon. Member, and the inquiry showed that the full journeyman's rate is paid to all workers entitled to receive it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why a lad who has nearly 11 years' service is not receiving full journeyman's pay? Is he aware that I have been informed by the father of this lad that he has been nearly 11 years in service at these works and is not receiving journeyman's pay yet; and will he have inquiry made into that case?

Mr. LINDSAY: I have made careful inquiries into this case, and I am satisfied that all those entitled to receive that rate of pay are receiving it at the present time.

Mr. KELLY: On what basis have the Admiralty agreed to six years' apprentice-

ship in Scotland before the journeyman's rate is paid?

Mr. LINDSAY: This has been the practice for a good many years.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

RAILWAY EMPLOYÉ'S GRATUITY.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain the reason why Belo, a headman who had served for 40 years on the Nigerian railways in various capacities, and who was dismissed in December, 1934, on account of old age, was only granted an ex-gratia gratuity of £7 16s., instead of the more considerable sum which previous grants had led him to expect; and whether any further grant will now be made to headman Belo?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: This man wes granted the maximum amount payable to an employé of his status under the procedure in force at the time of his retirement. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LUNN: If I hand the correspondence dealing with this question to the right hon. Gentleman, will he give it further consideration?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. I looked into it personally, and the difficulty was the question of retrospective payments, but I will certainly look into it again.

COLONIAL MEDICAL SERVICE.

Dr. LEECH: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the conditions of service and rates of pay of the West African section of the Colonial Medical Service have recently been revised; that this revision has caused such dissatisfaction as to compel the Nigerian section to memorialise his Department; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have recently received, through the Governor of Nigeria, a memorial from the members of the Colonial Medical Service serving in Nigeria, which is receiving consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ARAB DELEGATION.

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take the opportunity of the visit of the Arab delegates from Palestine to England to bring the Arabs and Jews together at a round-table conference?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the forthcoming visit of the Palestine-Arab delegation to this country, he will consider the desirability of setting up a round-table conference of representatives of every interest in Palestine with a view to evolving a constitution which will provide a permanent and satisfactory settlement for that mandated territory?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The object with which the Arab leaders in Palestine have been invited to this country is that they may have an opportunity of stating their case to His Majesty's Government, and it will be appreciated that, until I have received and considered their representations, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. SAMUEL: When does my right hon. Friend assume that these arrangements will be finished?

Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty, unfortunately, in Palestine at the moment is delaying the leaving of the Arab deputation. Therefore, obviously I could not say when they are coming.

I. Z. KOLTUN.

Mr. GALLAGHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report from the High Commissioner for Palestine concerning the case of I. Z. Koltun, a Jewish writer, who is being held in prison in Palestine, against whom no charge has been brought and who is in bad health, aggravated by the conditions of his confinement?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am still awaiting a report from the High Commissioner for Palestine, but I understand that Koltun was released on bail as long ago as 13th March.

LABOUR.

Mr. MORGAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of 500 porters and 90 customs guards employed by the Haifa port authorities not one is a Jew; and whether, in view of the fact that the Jewish population of Palestine amounts to approximately one-third of the whole and contributes over half the revenue of that mandated territory, he will cause arrangements to be made to ensure that a proportion of Jews are employed on all works paid for out of public funds and that the present discrimination against Jewish labour will cease?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not able to confirm the statement made in the first part of the question, but I understand that Arabs offer themselves more readily than Jews for labour in the ports of Palestine. As regards the second part of the question, employment on works paid for out of public funds in Palestine is available to Jews on the same conditions as to non-Jews.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the mandate for Palestine, at any rate, will not be handed over to Germany?

Mr. THOMAS: That does not arise out of the difference between Jews not seeking work and Arabs wanting work.

KENYA (KIKUYU NATIVES).

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the Kenya Government's announced intention to expel some 300 Kikuyu natives from the holdings permanently held by them in Kenya in order to make way for white proprietors, what steps it is proposed to take to explain to the natives concerned the grounds on which this expropriation has been decided on?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have no information in regard to the subject of this question, beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I will make inquiries.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (RATIONS).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the


inquiries being made into the question of substituting butter for margarine in the rations of the Royal Air Force are concluded; and if so, what decisions have been reached?

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Major George Davies): I have been asked to reply. The inquiries are not yet concluded.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: When the new uniforms for the officers come into use on 1st May, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman try to shift margarine out of the way, and get butter?

WEMBLEY STADIUM (AEROPLANES).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the occasion of the Football Association Cup Final at Wembley on 25th April, a number of aeroplanes towing advertisement streamers and of autogiros carrying photographers flew round the area of the stadium; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the advisability of prohibiting flights of this kind where large crowds are gathered in future?

Major DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I am advised, first, that the police found nothing in the flying carried out at Wembley to justify action by them against those responsible; second, that no danger was involved which would have justified my Noble Friend in issuing a prohibition of flying over the stadium in the interests of public safety. I understand that flying for the purpose of photographing the cup final is no innovation, and it was not considered that there was sufficient reason to justify intervention by the Air Ministry. Whether or not any action should be taken in the interest of public safety must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether in such a case it was necessary to obtain a special permit from the Air Ministry?

Major DAVIES: I will inquire into that.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that this was one of the reasons why Sheffield lost the cup?

HONG KONG (TRANS-PACIFIC AIR SERVICE).

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Hong Kong authorities recently refused to agree to an American proposal to make Hong Kong the terminal point in China for a regular trans-Pacific air service; that the proposition was accepted by the Portuguese authorities at Macau; and whether he' has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not aware of any recent application having been made on behalf of American interests for permission to operate a regular trans-Pacific air service to Hong Kong, but if such a request were to be made His Majesty's Government would be prepared to give it favourable consideration.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire at Hong Kong? I have definite information that this request was made and was refused, as commercial interests in Hong Kong were very much annoyed at the decision.

Mr. THOMAS: Before giving this answer, I ascertained the facts from Hong Kong, and I was assured that no application had been made. I have already answered that if an application was made, it would be favourably considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

SCANDINAVIAN SERVICE.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the White Paper containing detailed proposals in connection with the air services to Scandinavia will be available to Members of this House before the Financial Resolution in connection with the Air Navigation Bill is considered in Committee?

Major DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I regret that this will not be practicable. The White Paper will, however, be laid in advance of the signing of the agreement.

Mr. LEWIS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend represent to the Under-Secretary of State that this House was promised as long ago as 7th March that this White Paper would be published very shortly,


and that the delay in publishing it is giving rise to wonder whether the Government wish the House not to have the information until the Debate takes place?

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (PROPOSED BOARD).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why it has not been possible to obtain the co-operation of Lloyd's Register in the formation of the board to which it is proposed to delegate certain functions in regard to the design, construction and maintenance of civil aircraft?

Major DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. The Committee of Lloyd's Register were invited, through their Joint Aviation Advisory Committee, to take part in framing the scheme under which the proposed board would be constituted. They preferred, however, to stand aside and to leave the new body to be directed by purely aviation and allied interests. At the same time Lloyd's Register and the British Corporation were good enough to lend the services of their secretaries to assist in the drafting of the scheme, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my Noble Friend's appreciation of their action.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (MECHANICAL INDICATORS).

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that it is frequently impossible for drivers to see the signals made by the drivers of large vehicles, especially motor omnibuses, he will, in the interest of public safety, make it compulsory for such vehicles to be equipped with some type of automatic signals?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Regulations prescribe that the driver's seat shall be so placed as to permit him to give by hand the usual traffic signals on the offside of the vehicle. It has not hitherto been found desirable to make the fitting of mechanical indicators compulsory on any vehicle, and the Regulations confine themselves to prescribing the form which indicators Should take if they are fitted.

Mr. ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman had experience of driving on twisted country roads, for instance, where it is almost entirely impossible to see any signal made by the driver of a large omnibus or similar vehicle

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Whether or not that be the case, I do not think making it compulsory to have such indicators would be a solution. Some drivers are in the habit of leaving their indicators on when they ought to nave turned them off again.

Mr. DAY: Cannot they be made automatic? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a lot of automatic signals fixed to motor cars?

TRUNK-ROAD SCHEMES (SCOTLAND).

Captain McEWEN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the protests made by the local authorities of the counties of East Lothian, Midlothian, and Dumbartonshire against the lesser grant-in-aid of trunk-road schemes which the Ministry is giving to those counties as compared with the other counties of Scotland; and whether, in view of this unfair discrimination, he will raise the grant in these three cases to the level of the general grant given?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The rates of grant available to county councils for works of improvement on trunk roads vary according to their need as ascertained under the Local Government Acts formula of 1929. On this basis the three counties referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend receive more than some counties but less than others.

QUEENSFERRY (FERRY SERVICE).

Mr. ERSKINE HILL: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the charges made by the owners of the ferry operating between North and South Queensferry in respect of the transport of motor vehicles of between two and four tons and of over four tons; and the stage reached with the proposition to run a special night service for heavy vehicles to cope with the large number of these vehicles which at present cannot use the ferry owing to the prohibitive cost of transport?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. ERSKINE HILL: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the present high cost of transport across the Forth when he is considering the question of the Forth road bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Most certainly; all these facts will be placed before me.

Mr. SIHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ferry is now completely out of date, and is it not desirable that he should turn his attention to the need for improved facilities for traffic by proceeding with the Forth road bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that it is customary to argue a case before giving a verdict. The interested parties have not yet prepared the case which they are to submit to me.

Following is the answer:

Charges for mechanically- propelled goods vehicles using Queensferry Passage.


—
Per unladen vehicle.
Per laden vehicle.



S.
d.
S.
d.


Exceeding 2 tons but not exceeding2½ tons (unladen weight.
7
0
12
6


Exceeding 2½ tons but not exceeding 3 tons (unladen weight).
8
6
15
6


Exceeding 3 tons but not exceeding 4 tons (unladen weight).
11
6
22
6


Exceeding 4 tons but not exceeding 5 tons (unladen weight).
14
6
30
0

NOTE.—The maximum unladen weight of goods vehicles accepted for transport is five tons. The London and North Eastern Railway Company inform me that they are not aware of any proposal to run a night service of the ferry and that no suggestion that such a service is necessary has been brought to their notice.

SPEED LIMIT.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: asked the Minister of Transport the number of inquiries held by his Department with regard to the derestriction of certain roads; how many areas have, after inquiry, been derestricted; and how many have been left under restriction?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will with

my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of inquiries held is 33, involving 242 lengths of road. As a result of the inquiries:

Cases.


Restrictions have already been re moved in
80


I have intimated my view that they should be removed in a further
95


I have agreed that the restrictions should remain in
66


and I await the report of the inquiry in the remaining
1


This making up the total of
242

TOLL-BRIDGES.

Sir G. FOX: asked the Minister of Transport whether has has considered representations from the residents of Pangbourne and Whitchurch with regard to removing the toll-bridge at Whit-church; what is the present number of toll-bridges on the Thames; and the total number in the country?

Mr. H0RE-BELISHA: No recent representations have been made to me with regard to the freeing of Whitchurch Bridge from tolls. There are five toll-bridges over the Thames and a total of 77 toll-bridges on roads in Great Britain. I am prepared to consider applications by the responsible highway authorities for grants towards the elimination of tollbridges.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to free these tolls all the time the Chancellor is nibbling at his Road Fund?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That does not make the slightest difference.

Mr. PALING: Are local authorities rising to the occasion and making applications?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should require notice of that question.

RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will approach the railway companies to ascertain whether they will be prepared to allow season tickets for a period of one quarter


or over to be extended by the days of the holder's holidays provided the holder hands such ticket in at his local booking office before proceeding on holiday?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will communicate my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to the railway companies.

Sir A. KNOX: In submitting this to the railway companies, will the right hon. Gentleman point out to them that when he raised the question before, the reply of the railway companies did not meet the case? It merely dealt with refunds and refunds were not asked for, only an extension of the period of the season ticket?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will ask the railway companies to give a complete answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

BICYCLE ACCIDENT, WANDSWORTH.

Mr. M. SAMUEL: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in respect of the death of James McGregor who, while riding a bicycle in Wandsworth, suffered a fatal accident occasioned by the neglect of the responsible authority to keep its roadway and the tramway tracks thereon in repair, he will consider the anomaly at present arising from the distinction at law between the liability of local authorities for nonfeasance and for misfeasance; and whether he will introduce legislation to remove this anomaly by providing that local authorities shall be responsible for damage resulting from their omission or neglect to maintain roadways in a safe and proper condition?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I am unable to confirm the circumstances of the unfortunate accident to which my hon. Friend refers, and as he raises legal issues extending far beyond the scope of any responsibilities of my Department, I would be reluctant to express an opinion in reply to a question on this matter.

RAILWAY TRAINS (SPACING).

Mr. BOSSOM: asked the Minister of Transport what is the space existing between moving trains on the existing Fulham section of the District Railway; and at what date was this regulation first imposed that determined this spacing?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will communicate to my hon. Friend the result of his inquiry as soon as I receive the information.

TROLLEY OMNIBUS TURNING CIRCLE, ST. PANCRAS.

Captain Sir IAN FRASER: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the petition signed by 240 residents on the Holly Lodge Estate, in the Borough of St. Pancras, showing that in their opinion the proposal of the London Passenger Transport Board to make a turning circle for trolley omnibuses at the junction of Swain's Lane, West and Highgate Road is contrary to the public interest and dangerous to life; and whether he can give assurances that before such a turning circle is permitted to be made the views of local residents will be taken into account and full inquiry undertaken?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If Parliament authorises this route and the board apply for my approval of the turning circle, I will certainly consider any representations that may then be made to me.

Sir I. FRASER: Will the Ministry in the ordinary course take steps to advertise the time when such a matter comes under consideration, so that all interested may know?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No doubt my hon. and gallant Friend realises that this matter is referred to in the Bill of the London Passenger Transport Board before Parliament, and therefore I think that full publicity will be given to it.

ROADS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. LIDDALL (for Colonel GOODMAN): asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state, for the last available year, the amounts expended by county highway authorities in Great Britain on Class I and Class II roads and bridges, showing. respectively, expenditure out of the rates fund, out of the Road Fund grants, met out of loans raised and to be raised, and met otherwise, under the headings of maintenance, repair and minor improvement, major improvement, and new construction

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate the table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Expenditure by County Councils (other than the London Council). On Class I and Class II Roads and Bridges.* Year 1933–34.


Head of Expenditure.
Expenditure met out of
Met otherwise.
Total.


Rates Fund.
Road Fund Grants.
Loans raised or to beraised.


Class I Roads.
£
£
£
£
£


Maintenance, Repairs and Minor Improvement.
3,048,304
5,323,998
144,788
210,601
8,727,691


Major Improvement (Widenings, etc.)
488,362
1,172,005
273,462
30,297
1,964,126


New Construction
…
…
110,833
1,581,934
379,302
110,033
2,182,102


Total
…
…
3,647,499
8,077,937
797,552
350,931
12,873,919


Class II Roads.







Maintenance, Repairs and Minor Improvement.
2,115,760
2,256,179
35,239
60,659
4,467,837


Major Improvement (Widenings, etc.).
104,305
204,441
70,077
4,772
383,595


New Construction
…
…
4,030
17,174
15,931
1,837
38,972


Total
…
…
2,224,095
2,477,794
121,247
67,268
4,890,404


* Including expenditure on "Claimed" roads whether borne on the county rate or on the local rate funds.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CARLISLE- EGREMONT).

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Minister of Transport by what percentage the estimated electrical load for 1935 on the transmission system between Carlisle and Egremont is exceeded; what further load the existing system would carry; whether the existing system is not yet normally carrying 50 per cent. of its possible load; and whether the Central Electricity Board will delay the construction of further circuits from Carlisle to the west of Cumberland until such a percentage is reached?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Central Electricity Board inform me that the load on the transmission system between Carlisle and Egremont is expected to exceed the safe capacity of the existing line in 1937, and that they cannot, therefore, delay the construction of further circuits.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister for the

Co-ordination of Defence, the Minister of Agriculture, or the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the food supplies of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Responsibility for policy rests with the Government as a whole. As indicated on 22nd April by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, a special committee which is under his chairmanship is now engaged on a re-examination of the whole question of food supply in an emergency, and as I informed my hon. Friend on 2nd April, various aspects of the question are dealt with in the appropriate Department.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Prime Minister whether, in formulating a policy for food production and supplies in this country, His Majesty's Government will take into special consideration the question of nutrition?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that the important questions of nutrition are receiving due consideration in connection with the problem of food supplies now under review.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the wide area covered by this question and the number of ministries involved, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be advisable to set up a permanent committee, rather than a mere temporary committee under the Committee of Coordination of Defence, in order to consider this question and to formulate a policy? I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

PETROL.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether any trials have been made, or experiments carried out, by any of the mechanised motor services of His Majesty's Forces which use petrol for the use of petrol distilled from British coal; and whether any satisfactory results have been obtained?

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. In addition to trials and experiments carried out, material quantities of motor spirit and other oil products obtained from coal have been purchased by the Service Departments in the ordinary way and used under normal conditions.

Mr. DAY: Are these experiments continuing?

Sir T. INSKIP: They are not experiments, but normal transactions.

Mr. THURTLE: Are the results obtained from this fuel satisfactory?

Sir T. INSKIP: For normal uses, most satisfactory.

CHIEFS OF STAFF.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether he will state upon how many occasions since his appointment the chiefs of staff sub-committee has met and upon how many occasions he himself has presided at its meetings?

Sir T. INSKIP: It has not been the practice to state the number or frequency of meetings of individual committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I should deprecate doing so now, because

the figures might be very misleading for the purpose of estimating the amount of work in progress. In this particular case they would afford no index of the amount of consultation which takes place almost daily between the chiefs of staff and myself.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: May I ask how often my right hon. Friend has taken the chair at meetings of the committee?

Sir T. INSKIP: That is precisely the information which I suggest to the House it is not advisable to give. I am, of course, in the hands of the House if I am pressed to give the figures.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Prime Minister when the Disarmament Conference, suspended at. Geneva in March, 1933, for a few days, is likely to meet again?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Disarmament Conference was not suspended in March, 1933, but continued to meet in 1933 and 1934. As regards future developments I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 4th February last.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to get this conference going again so that he may have a chance of saving the appalling expenditure which he contemplates?

PENARTH DOCK (CLOSING).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on 24th April the Great Western Railway Company announced that owing to a further decline in trade due partly to sanctions against coal exports to Italy, resulting in a loss of exports from South Wales from two to three million tons per annum, Penarth Dock is to be closed; whether any Government Department was consulted by the Great Western Railway Company prior o this decision being made; whether the Government propose to locate any of the new Government works, or part of Woolwich Arsenal, in


this area to compensate for the loss of salaries, wages, and other local revenues; and whether he is now in a position to announce his decision regarding the question of State assistance for South Wales generally, and economic restoration throughout the region?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that the Great Western Railway Company has announced that owing to the continued decline in coal exports it is closing Penarth Dock temporarily. I must, however, correct my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that sanctions against Italy have resulted in a loss of exports from South Wales of from two to three million tons a year. Most of the fall in exports, in fact, took place before sanctions were instituted. As regards the second part of the question, the general manager informed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the 17th instant that the proposals for the temporary closing of the dock were again before the company, and that a formal announcement would be made as soon as the decision had been confirmed by the board. As regards the third part of the question, I am not in a position to add to the statement on Government factories made by the Lord President of the Council in the Debate on 2nd March last. The more general question raised in the last part of the question cannot be discussed within the limits of a Parliamentary reply, but my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the Government's policy in relation to both Special Areas and areas of heavy unemployment has been fully explained on recent occasions.

Captain EVANS: Is the Prime Minister aware that the reason for the falling off in trade because of sanctions was given by the Great Western Railway Company themselves; and is it not a fact that, although it is true that coal is not on the prohibited list so far as sanctions are concerned, the effect of sanctions has been to make it impossible for Italy to establish sterling credits in London which would enable her to pay for South Wales coal? With regard to the second part of the reply, did His Majesty's Government make any protest to the Great Western Railway Company when this decision was made known to them; and will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to deal with the part of the question

which asks whether it is proposed to locate any Government works in this area to compensate it for loss of trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the last part, I said I could not add to the statement that has been made by the Lord President of the Council. That statement stands, and until the land has been acquired it is inadvisable to say anything further. With regard to exports, the difficulty has very likely been quickened by the imposition of sanctions, but the difficulty for a long time has been in securing proper payments from Italy for goods. That is a difficulty that arose before sanctions were put on.

Mr. G. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the chairman of the Great Western Railway Company as to the cause of the falling off in the export coal trade of South Wales, and are the Government taking any action to deal with this serious loss of trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was not on this occasion consulted, but I agree that it is one of the many difficult situations with which this country is faced in view of the difficulties of international trade and of remittances.

Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the chairman of the Great Western Railway Company as to his opinion of the cause of the closing down of this dock and the loss of trade in South Wales generally?

Mr. W. ROBERTS: Is it true that the Italians were owing South Wales coal-owners £2,000,000 before sanctions were adopted?

GERMANY (QUESTIONNAIRE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered and arrived at any conclusion upon the terms of the questionnaire to be forwarded to Herr Hitler asking for further explanations of his peace proposals; and can he make a statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government hope to get into touch with the German Government at a very early date in order, as forecast in the Geneva communiqué of 10th April, to elucidate certain points in the German memorandum of 31st March and the two earlier memoranda of 24th March and 7th March.

Mr. DAY: Will the communication take the form of a formal note or a memorandum?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK.

TRAFFIC.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the continual traffic congestion at the Victoria Gate entrance to Hyde Park; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter so as to improve the traffic conditions?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am aware of the problem to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. It is being considered, in connection with the question of traffic generally in and around the park, by the Ministry of Transport and the police authorities, and will be considered by my Department in the light of their representations.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Cannot my right hon. Friend come to a decision on this matter which has been under consideration for some years now? The congestion is very serious.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. and gallant Friend will know that an agreement made to alter one artery of traffic in a park may affect traffic in many other places. This is a problem which has to be considered as a whole, and, as I say, I am not a traffic authority or a traffic expert and this is a matter for the Ministry of Transport and the police authorities in London. I cannot do anything unless they make representations.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when the matter is likely to be considered and a decision come to?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, I cannot.

Mr. LEVY: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he cannot take action in respect of exits from the park unless he gets outside recommendations?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, I cannot alter the traffic rules and arrangements in and out of the park without consulting the traffic authorities.

LOUD SPEAKERS.

Mr. LIDDALL (for Colonel GOODMAN): asked the First Commissioner of Works, on what grounds the use of loud speakers was refused for the Cavalry memorial service in Hyde Park on 26th April; and whether he is aware that such use was permitted in former years?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been compelled to make it a rule riot to allow the use of loud speakers in Hyde Park, and my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that this rule, which is for the benefit of all users of the park, could not long be maintained if I made any exceptions. I am aware that loud speakers have been allowed at the Cavalry memorial service in former years, and, as a result, I have had numerous requests for them at other functions. I therefore explained to Lord Allenby that in the general interest I could not allow the exceptional privilege to continue.

Mr. THORNE: Does that reply mean that there will be no loud speakers in the May Day demonstrations on Sunday?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.

Mr. THORNE: Why not?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Because you frequently get two or more people speaking in Hyde Park at the same time, and if they are all to have loud speakers it will be pandemonium.

BEEF MARKETING.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any progress has been made in the direction of a scheme for the efficient marketing of beef?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): There is nothing that I can add at present to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend's question on this subject on 17th February.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Ministry of Agriculture have been in consultation with the industry on this matter?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Oh, yes. Certainly.

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any consultations have taken place with the Dominions, and whether he is able to state their views, on the subject of a possible surrender, under any circumstances, of the territories now held by them under mandate from the League of Nations; and whether the policy of the Dominions in this matter is in all respects the same as that of the British Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): The question to which the hon. Member refers is one for the consideration of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions concerned. As was made clear by the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member on 23rd April, no question of consultation between His Majesty's Governments on this matter has arisen. The hon. Member will appreciate, therefore, that I am not in a position to answer the last part of his question, but I have no reason to suppose that any difference would arise.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from that reply that, in the view of all the Dominions, this is for the future an open question?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: No, Sir, no consultation has taken place, and I do not know what the view of the Dominions is.

Mr. MANDER: Would it not be desirable to find out, so that there might be a united Empire policy?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The question has not arisen.

Mr. MANDER: As a matter of fact, is it not perfectly well known that none of the Dominions would in any circumstances surrender its mandate?

HON. MEMBERS: Then why put the question?

SCHOOL SITE (EAST KINGSBURY, N. W.).

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the deadlock in connection with the acquisition of the site for the new elementary school at Springfield, East

Kingsbury, N.W., still exists; and, if so, what steps to obtain possession of the site does he propose to take?

Sir JAMES BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend understands that the local education authority have not yet been able to agree with the vendors on terms for the acquisition of the site in question and have decided that, in the event of agreement not being arrived at within the next few days, application should be made to the board for authority to purchase the land compulsorily.

Sir R. BLAIR: Is my hon. Friend aware that five years ago the county council authorised this school, and does he not think five years is too long to wait for that site?

Sir J. BLINDELL: It does seem that a decision is now to be made.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government contemplate the introduction of a Redistribution Bill before the end of the present Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Nuneaton Division (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 2nd April.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that reply indicates that there will be a Redistribution Bill or not?

Mr. LLOYD: The effect of that reply was that the programme for the present Session had been announced, and that my right hon. Friend could not anticipate the work of future Sessions.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD (ADVANCES).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present minimum rate of interest on advances made by the Public Works Loans Board to local authorities for the


purposes of the Housing Acts; and whether he will take steps to make some reduction in such rate of interest in order to ease the financial burdens of local authorities?

The FINANCIAL SECREARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The present minimum rate of interest on loans to local authorities out of the Local Loans Fund is 3¼ per cent., to which figure it was reduced on 16th November, 1934. I regret that it is not possible to reduce this rate without endangering the solvency of the fund.

UNEMPLOYMENT (MEANS TEST).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the request sent by the vice-president of the Miners' Federation to eliminate the means test from the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and what reply he has made thereto?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): My right hon. Friend has received a letter dated 16th April to which I presume the hon. Member refers. The policy of the Government in this matter has been clearly stated in this House, and my right hon. Friend did not think it necessary to send any reply to the letter beyond the acknowledgment of its receipt.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

CIVIL LIST.

Committee to consider of the Acts relating to the Civil List upon Tuesday next.

Ordered,
That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 11th March respecting the Civil List be referred to the said Committee.

Ordered,
That the Report which upon the 7th April was made by the Select Committee on the Civil List be referred to the said Committee.—[Captain Margesson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at. this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; to extend the limits of supply of the Company; and for other purposes." [South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords.]

PUBLIC SEWERS (CONTRIBUTIONS BY FRONTAGERS).

The Lords have appointed a Committee consisting of Three Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the provisions of Sections 62 and 64 of the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931, with respect to contributions by frontagers to the expenses of the construction of public sewers, and to make recommendations as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions upon which, similar provisions should be allowed in future Bills, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

The Lords propose that leave be given to the Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, so far as the Committee think fit.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [Lords].

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Seven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Public Health Bill [Lords], and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1936.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Captain Margesson.]

LIGHTING OF HIGHWAYS.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. SALT: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
having regard to the number of road accidents that occur after dark and to the desirability of affording adequate illumination for the convenience and safety of the public and for the prevention of crime, it is expedient that the lighting of highways should be dealt with on a national basis.
I count myself fortunate in having this opportunity to move this Amendment. I hope that the opportunity will not be entirely wasted, and that my Amendment may be of interest to the House. It is well known to us all that the lighting of the roads is not satisfactory. A great change has taken place in transport conditions during the last generation, and there are now about 10,000,000 cycles and more than 2,000,000 motor vehicles on the highways, as against a comparatively small number of horse-drawn vehicles. The pace on the road used to be never higher than 10 or 12 miles per hour. I well remember when residing in France the first motor omnibuses appeared on the streets of Paris, with considerable clatter and noise and at an apparent fast pace but actually not more than 15 or 20 miles per hour, which was considered so dangerous that they were called juggernauts. To-day, motor omnibuses go everywhere at 30 miles per hour, and motoring critics quite frequently mention that a new car has a comfortable cruising speed of 60 miles per hour.
Bad lighting is due to the fact that lighting is controlled by 1,400 local authorities. In the interim report of the Departmental Committee it is stated that there is an arterial road near London which is 13 miles in length and has 27 variations of lighting standards. If you travel at 30 miles per hour along that

road you can therefore expect a change of lighting every 60 seconds, good, bad and indifferent. Anyone who drives knows that constant changes of that kind are dangerous, and conduce to accidents. Such results cannot be rightly ascribed to the crass stupidity of local authorities; it is due to the impossibility of their carrying out the work that is now allotted to them. The report mentions also that the cost to a small local authority of lighting a highway which goes through their district might be a 10-shilling rate, whereas the same work done by the county council would cost.65d. It is obvious that until this work is taken out of the hands of local authorities and put under the central control of the Ministry of Transport, such a state of affairs will continue.
I realise that the same applies generally to the roads, but there are questions affecting light which form a problem of their own and the need for central control is dominant. The reason why I am glad to have this opportunity of speaking on the matter is that I believe a serious proportion of the accidents which take place could be prevented by better lighting. Not expecting to have this opportunity, I spoke on 4th March when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) addressed the House on road safety, and I brought forward certain statistics to show the number of accidents which might have been prevented. This is one of the most serious aspects of the lighting problem. I specially wish to mention it because it is dealt with in the interim report, and because accidents are undoubtedly due to bad lighting. The Committee state that they cannot find actual data to prove to what degree accidents are due solely to poor lighting. If hon. Members will refer to the Home Office Report on Fatal Road Accidents, 1933, they will find a detailed statement showing the fatal accidents hour by hour for the whole 24 hours of the day, and month by month.
I would ask the House to consider the accidents which occur between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. That is one of the busiest times of the day, and affords the best comparison I can find between light hours and dark hours. In May, June and July, that part of the day is entirely light, and in November, December and January, it is dark. The accidents in the latter months are 25 per cent. greater than in


the summer, despite the fact that the number of vehicles on the roads is much smaller in the winter. In the Home Office Report on Accidents for last year one finds other equally interesting data. Public vehicles are used to approximately the same extent in both winter and summer, and, comparing the deaths taking place in May, June and July of last year with those in the three dark winter months, one finds that the increase in November, December and January was 50 per cent. Another important comparison affects light commercial vehicles. These, again, run to about the same extent in summer and winter, and in this case there are no fewer than 66 per cent. more deaths in the winter than in the summer, while the accidents show a very similar state of affairs.
What would it cost to light the roads adequately? In the Interim Report it is suggested that some 10,000 miles of roads could be lit by what is now called flood lighting, with lamps suspended 25 feet high, for £3,500,000 to £4,000,000 per annum. In the course of the important review on the subject of lighting which took place at the Public Works and Transport Congress last November, the extent of the roads necessary to be lit was given as 8,000 miles, and the cost as £2,500,000 per annum. This sum may strike the House as very considerable until they consider the saving that can be effected on the other side. If, as I believe to be the case, the figures I have quoted to-day and on previous occasions are correct—they are vouched for by official documents—they show that there would be a saving of some 700 deaths and 19,000 injuries per year, and personally I think that that in itself is sufficient to warrant the cost, apart from other factors; but actually I believe that the economic saving to the country would balance the cost. In the United States of America that claim is made without any doubt at all.
I base my suggestion as to the saving that would take place on the following grounds. In the first place, motor insurance companies pay in claims no less than £25,000,000 per year, and a 10 per cent. saving would be £2,500,000. I realise that that would not go to the Treasury, but it does affect the country as a whole,

and it does give some indication of the extent of the present problem. Beyond, however, the saving to the insurance companies and ultimately to the public, the suffering that has to be undergone is very great and the cost that is entailed upon everyone concerned, in addition to what is paid by insurance companies, is very heavy. The possible saving to hospitals, ambulances and police cannot be ignored. There is no doubt, therefore, that the total economic saving would be very great.
I should like to put another point to the House as to the manner in which I consider the suggestion could be carried out without affecting the Chancellor's Budget. At present, rather more than 2,000,000 motor users pay something over £70,000,000 a year, or an average of £35 each. An increase of 100,000 in the number of motor vehicles on the roads would mean an increased payment of £3,500,000 per year. I believe I am correct in saying that during the past year the increase has been 136,000, which would bring in approximately £5,000,000 of extra revenue. I think, also, I am correct in saying that that revenue has not been allotted to the Exchequer, and, if Parliament decided that this extra revenue should be used for lighting the roads, it would be sufficient to continue to do so as long as the present rate of taxation on road vehicles was applied.
Another very vital matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the provision of employment. If we spent £4,000,000 on lighting our roads, it is obvious that most of that money would be spent in wages. A sum of £4,000,000 would find wages for 28,000 men at something like £3 a week, so that certainly 20,000 men might anticipate obtaining employment by this scheme. Many of these would be unemployed miners, and it would provide work for unskilled and semi-skilled men. Consequently, there would be a reduction in the sum now paid for public assistance and unemployment benefit, and, while I could not give any figures as to what that would amount to, it cannot be negligible.
The type of lighting that seems necessary for such roads is, I believe, well known to Members of the House. We see it in most of our great cities. They use either gas or electricity. In Liverpool, I believe, they use a sodium lamp, and I


am told that in the case of the new Mersey Tunnel some 7,000,000 vehicles have passed through without a single accident due to defective lighting. Croydon, I understand, is now lighting the new by-pass at Purley for 6,000 yards by a similar method. In Birmingham we have the electric discharge lamp, which is entirely satisfactory. I know that that light is capable of penetrating mist and fog. I myself, on occasions of dense fog have had the experience of being able to proceed quite normally until I got out of the range of this lighting. I remember that on one occasion it took me three hours to cover the next 10 miles, whereas I had previously been able to travel at 30 miles an hour. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) last night mentioned his experience in going up the Great North Road, where he said that for some 60 miles there was mist and fog, and anyone who has driven under those conditions will realise the danger, anxiety and strain that it involves. This question specially affects lorry drivers, who drive every day of the week throughout the year. Consequently, I think that a system such as we are now able to supply in some places might well be used on the roads that carry the heavy traffic.
The roads which I have particularly in mind as being roads where adequate lighting is necessary are those which link up busy commercial towns, such as London and Southampton, Birmingham and London, Liverpool and Manchester, and so on; but it is equally important that in all our great cities the roads that connect the centre of the city with the suburbs, and usually have numbers of public vehicles running along them, should be properly lit, while the side roads that enter these highways should be lit at their corners, because those are places where accidents might be expected and where they often occur. I believe that, with such lighting as that, you could not fail to bring about an enormous decrease in accidents. I believe that if this social service is brought up to date, which can be done only if Parliament gives authority to the Ministry of Transport, it will be a great step forward.

3. 51 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to second the Amendent.
My hon. Friend has put a strong case with great force, and I am sure I am expressing the feeling of the whole House when I say we are indebted to him for this opportunity for the discussion of this matter of prime public importance. The functions of street lighting may be conveniently discussed under four headings:—(1) the convenience and safety of road users; (2) police purposes; (3) convenience of residents; (4) special purposes in shopping areas and important urban centres. The convenience and safety of traffic should be the primary considerations in determining the form and character of the lighting of traffic routes—which term includes all roads which form the main approaches to or from important centres of population, or which pass through detached built-up areas and on which there is, or may be, appreciable pedestrian traffic. There are many factors that make for road safety or road danger, as the case may be. We have great highways, dual carriage-ways, cycle tracks, safety lanes and pedestrian crossings, and the whole country is grateful for the courage and imagination which have been displayed by the Minister in dealing with this important problem. Whatever has been done on these lines is all to the good, but it is not in itself complete. The danger of bad lighting remains, and, in. my view, in the interest of public safety, the question of street lighting demands immediate and far-reaching attention. Something like a third of the fatal accidents on the roads occur during the hours of darkness, and this is a tremendous proportion when one considers the decrease of traffic that must take place during those hours. The general inefficiency of the lighting of the roads is very largely to blame for that state of affairs. The existing system of lighting control of roads on which heavy traffic goes is chaotic. In the case of a very unfortunate disaster some time ago where two people were killed on a large main road within two or three miles of the centre of an important provincial town, it was found that one side of the road was lighted because it was administered by one authority and the other side, administered by another authority, had no lighting at all.

Mr. DENMAN: On which side of the road did the accident occur?

Mr. LYONS: On the lighted side, largely owing to the fact that on the other side there was no light: there is the danger of "a. pool of darkness." The lighting system has not progressed anything like the other systems that govern our traffic. In the construction of important roads, the Minister of Transport can make a grant to local authorities and is able to use his influence towards securing standards of construction, and in the direction of unifying the standards that are employed by the authorities through whose territory the roads pass, but in the case of lighting there is no grant of any sort or kind that the Minister is empowered to make, and the local or urban authority concerned, can only deal with the portion of the road that passes through its own territory and adopts its own standard according to its own ideas of efficiency and its capacity for expenditure. The result, as one would expect, is that there is endless variation and a good deal of confusion throughout the country. It is true that the problem of road surfacing is yet unsolved, and it may very well be that you cannot divorce it from the question of road lighting. A strong committee was set up in 1934 to consider the question of street lighting from all angles, and I should like to know what action has been or will be taken on the interim report that was issued at the end of last year, and when the final report is likely to be issued.
One instance is given in the interim report where, on a stretch of 13 miles on a main arterial road on the outskirts of London, there are 27 varying standards of lighting, ranging from reasonable efficiency to lighting which is not real lighting at all. There is another case of a road popularly used as an exit from central London where there are five authorities controlling a stretch of four miles. The lamp standards on those four miles vary in height from 10 to 22 feet, the distance of space varies from 15 to 130 yards, some posts are upright and others are "staggered," some sections have lights on one side only, and the standard of light varies from splendid to shocking. That is a state of affairs which I hope the Minister will not hesitate to take authority to stop in the interests of the general public safety. There must be in a matter of this nature some reasonable uniformity. Frequent variations in lighting are bound to make for public danger. They cause fatigue, they cause

misjudgment of distances, they cause embarrassment and they interfere with proper appreciation of spaces, speeds, and distances. They are things which could be avoided and should be avoided. Let me say one or two sentences on a matter to which I referred just now. It is extremely well summed up in paragraph 17 of the interim report, which reads as follows:
Our own observations lead us to the opinion that the 'pools of darkness' resulting from uneven distribution of light on the road surface, more especially in the case of inadequately lighted roads, render it difficult for the motorist to judge distances and for other road users to estimate the speed of approaching vehicles, and that marked variation of lighting in any one thoroughfare may also cause uncertainty in the mind of the motorist regarding the necessity for using his headlights. On the whole we agree with the opinion which has been advanced by more than one witness that street lighting which may be described as patchy may be worse from the point of view of public safety than no lighting at all.
It is this very patchiness that some of us want to see ended at once. The House will remember that Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, does give certain powers to county councils in connection with the lighting of roadways, but these powers are such that the county council cannot act as a lighting authority without the sanction of the existing authorities, and the existing authorities may be nothing greater than parish councils, which are entirely opposed to the control of the county council. The position is that although a county council is not prevented from proceeding with a scheme in a main arterial roadway, it is so placed that agreement to dual control is unlikely. Certainly it is not sufficient to bring about the street lighting that we want to see.
Recent road development has been swift. With the advance in transportation have come the wide arteries of today. Our road system has a function for which its local-thinking builders did not provide. An enormous amount of commercial long-haulage and tourist traffic uses the roads. Transport is hindered by a system unqualified for its service.
Public safety is placed in jeopardy by the present shocking system of lighting throughout our main roads. Upon any trunk road to-day, with the vast transport of all kinds, we see a hotchpotch of surfaces, of widths of lighting, of gradient


and of foundation. I hope the Minister of Transport will tell the House that he is at last going to take action which will put an end to that state of affairs. The reasonable uniformity which is wanted may not be possible so long as a number of local authorities—I believe they number more than a thousand—are administering to the needs of the roads.
I appeal to the Minister to say whether he cannot establish some kind of central authority in the form of a national centralised highways board which will tackle the whole question of street lighting. I would like to see the roads of this country, where the public safety has not been sufficiently considered, flood-lighted from one end to another. I would like to see the Minister experiment at once on one road, say the road from here to Brighton, to light it with flood lights, to try the centre light and the side light. This is not the time to argue the respective merits of gas and electricity. We have made enormous strides in recent years in the generation and use of electricity, and it may provide the solution. On the other hand, it may be advisable to use both kinds of illuminant. But let us try with flood-lighting on the road, and in that way stop the present heavy toll of human life. The figures of road accidents are appalling. Whatever can be done to put an end to the present terrible tragedy of the roads should be done and done at once.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the cost. It would be a trifle in comparison with the greater safety of the public. If we go along any 100 miles of road we know that it is under the control of numerous authorities, and we see the lighting that is essential for safe transport and for the safety of the public using the road, neglected by almost every local authority in the country. Let us not delay with the mass lighting of our roadways. I beg the Minister to come to the conclusion that this is a grave and pressing problem, that there must be a centralised system of reasonably uniform street lighting that will give safety to the public, and that he will flood-light roadways from end to end.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: This is a subject which, I should imagine, all Members of the House will agree to support. We are grateful to the hon. Member who has

brought it forward. It is only on an occasion like this that we can get such a matter fully debated, and get an expression of opinion from the Minister in control. All legislation must first of all have some thought behind it. This House never enters lightly on any big change. There must first be full consideration of it and an expression of the opinion of the House. This is one of the questions that arrest the attention of all road users, which means in effect that every citizen is concerned with it. The figures which have been quoted to-day have startled me. I am not very good at statistics; I always leave some one else to quote them. The figures that have been read out have been amazing to me. The hon. Member who moved the Motion dealt with accidents in the three dark months between five and eight o'clock in comparison with the three light months between five and eight o'clock, and the vast difference proved that it must be lighting which is causing a great number of accidents.
I have in mind one stretch of road which I have mentioned in this House many times. It is the Liverpool to Manchester East Lancashire road, a new road. It is one of the most beautiful roads in the country. If any hon. Member who is in Lancashire will visit that road he will come away with a better impression of Lancashire than he has now. That road is in large measure not lit at all. On a portion of it at each end, the Manchester end and the Liverpool end, attempts have been made to light it, but we cannot get the remainder lighted for reasons which have been mentioned by the hon. Member, who stated that although a county council can advise it cannot force an urban council to bear its share of the cost of lighting. On this unlighted section of the road we have all kinds of urban authorities with a share in the road. They say that the cost of the lighting of their portion of the road would be too great.
I have put a question repeatedly to the Minister of Transport, asking him whether he would use his influence with the Lancashire County Council to get them to do something with this unlighted length of road, and his reply has been invariably to this effect: "I sympathise with the hon. Member. I will use my influence with the Lancashire County Council, but he must remember that I


have no power to force them and can only advise them what they should do." They have done nothing. To my mind they are not a progressive county council, for they are composed largely of members who do not belong to my party. Consequently they do not see this matter in the light in which I see it, and the urge that has come from the Minister has had no effect up to now. In walking along this road in the dark hours it is amazing to see vehicles rushing up with big headlights on and then passing into darkness. There has been a large number of accidents on the road. In one place, on the borders of St. Helens, there was a serious accident, as a result of which St. Helens decided to put a roundabout there and to light it. But for miles there are stretches of road in darkness.
These things must arrest the attention of this House. Of all things in which we have made progress in recent years there is none in which we have made more progress than in lighting—from the rushlight to the candle light, then the gas light and now the electric light. In London, theatres and other places are lit up beautifully. Yet from London we pass out into the darkness of the long roads and we wonder why the authorities are not dealing with the matter. They ought to be under central guidance. Some kind of uniformity in the matter is essential. It is not right to have one part of a road badly lit and another well lit. This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. The last speaker said that he would like to see the flood lighting of a test road, and he mentioned the road from London to Brighton. I suggest that the Minister might use the East Lancashire road I have mentioned as a test road.

Mr. LYONS: Try both, one for the north and one for the south.

Mr. TINKER: I agree to that suggestion. The proposition might be taken up seriously. The Minister may tell us presently what he told us about the Forth Bridge, that the matter must be examined thoroughly. Before dealing with lighting as a whole the right hon. Gentleman might experiment with a test road, as has been suggested. There is a point which has not been mentioned so far. Improved lighting of the roads would

provide useful work for the unemployed apart from being of value to the community, for it would ensure the greater safety of the citizens of the country. I welcome the proposal and I think that the House will be unanimous regarding it. When the House expresses unanimity no Government can stand idly by and do nothing.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I should not have risen at this moment in this Debate, in which I had no intention of taking part, had not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) ended his remarks by saying, that he was sure that the House would welcome this Amendment. It, therefore, seems to me that this is the moment when there should be the strongest protest that one could make against the Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely not."]. Yes, against the spending of £3,500,000 of valuable and very necessary money upon an object which I should put extremely low in the queue of objects deserving national expenditure. If we had satisfied all the claims of poverty, and of our defences, and all the major needs of the country, and had £3,500,000 to throw about, I should very reluctantly agree to its being wasted on elaborate systems of lighting decent country roads that many of us have learnt to know in the dark. What countryman has not experienced the special interests of night, and of being able to walk about and find his way in the dark? This was one of the interesting experiences of War time. Hon. Members who recollect War time will remember that London was unlighted when air raids were on and that you could at last see the shape of buildings outlined against the sky and you could once more realise that God, who made day and night, knew what he was doing. This mania for destroying nature and producing light where it is not needed and is extremely ugly is a mania against which I, personally, desire to protest.
What are the grounds for this object of strewing the country about with lights? Safety! I deny absolutely that light is a cause of safety for motorists. On the contrary, it is one of the great dangers. We have been given excellent examples that lighting is in fact an evil, and anybody who drives a motor knows that in the


present inefficiently lit areas, you are far less safe than in the dark. If you drive at night, as I do sometimes, on a long country road, say the Great North Road, your danger points are not where there are no lights at all, but where you enter lighted areas, where there are widely spaced and inefficient lights and where the lighting of the motors themselves is masked by the effect of inefficient public lighting. I feel perfectly certain that, as between the present system of lighting and complete darkness, motoring would be safer in complete darkness. I am really certain of that, if the motor itself is a reasonably lighted vehicle and is being driven within the limit of safety appropropriate to its own lighting. I have been on very heavily occupied roads at night, when it has been completely dark —the Great North Road is an example—where there is much industrial traffic. The motors are themselves nowadays decently lighted. The anti-dazzle devices are reasonably effective, and they ought to be made more effective. In this instance, driving is as safe as your light will make it.
What will happen if you have this elaborate system of lighting? It simply means that people will drive rather faster. They will again go up to the limit of safety, and you will have increased accidents, just as you have had increased accidents upon the magnificent new roads on which it is easy to go 60 or 70 miles an hour. Yesterday I heard an hon. Member from the benches opposite accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being an assassin, because he was not making every road a 60 or 70 miles an hour road. Everybody knows that it is just that improvement in road quality, without corresponding improvement in wisdom in driving, that has been the cause of increased accidents. Before the roads were improved—and I look back 30 years—driving was safer than it is now, simply because people could not attain modern speeds. Of course, the old roads would not have held the traffic of to-day, and the problem is an entirely different one, but merely from the point of view of safety, the modern devices of enabling cars to go excessive speeds, so far from producing safety, produce greater danger, and I prefer to assert with great confidence that wider lighting would not necessarily mean any increase in safety. The Amendment begins by saying:

Having regard to the number of road accidents that occur after dark.
Do those accidents occur in the lighted areas or in the unlighted areas? Can the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) give me the figures of accidents in those areas?

Mr. SALT: These are in the detailed report, and the numbers in the dark areas are greater than in the lighted areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in poorly lighted districts it is worse than having no lighting at all, but the suggestion in the Amendment is for good lighting, which would do away with existing headlights, which are the main cause of accidents.

Mr. DENMAN: I entirely agree with the Mover of the Amendment in wanting standardised lighting, but where places are lit, it should be on a standardised basis, so that drivers would be accustomed to one general system of lighting, but I protest that there are great areas of country roads where I should be ashamed to introduce lighting. It would spoil the native pleasantness of this country to have these glaring avenues of light which nobody wants. But my main objection is one of finance. I am really amazed that the Labour party should wish to throw away £3,500,000 upon an expenditure of that kind.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: While I think that, everybody in the House welcomes the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt), I am sure that, on the other hand, nearly everyone will regret the attitude taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). It seems to be so directly opposite to progress, that one wonders in what age the hon. Member is living when he says that he would rather walk in the dark lanes of the country than in the lighted ones. I have been wondering whether he was referring to the passage in the old Book which says:
Man loveth darkness rather than light because"—
I will not conclude the sentence.

Mr. DENMAN: Carry on.

Mr. PARKINSON: I would not like to attribute that to the hon. Member, but when are living in a modern age we


cannot be content to live in the backwoods and the dark. We must live in the avenues of light in which we can serve our day and generation.

Mr. DENMAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that Paradise is illuminated with avenues of electric light?

Mr. PARKINSON: I am not quite sure about that, and must wait until I get there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Talk it over when you get there."] The hon. Member for Yardley moved his Amendment very fairly. I believe that there has been rather too much stress put upon the local authorities rather than upon the Government. The Government will have to find some money in order to meet the requirements of the country on the question of lighting. Although the hon. Member for Central Leeds objects to the throwing away of £3,500,000 upon lighting, I could very easily point out to him where I believe that the Government are throwing away many more times that amount, and they will not do any good by so doing. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that it would cost about £4,000,000, and by taking the two statements of £3,500,000 and £4,000,000 one should not be very far from the actual amount required. The hon. Member also pointed out that the cost in life was heaviest among pedestrians and cyclists where the lighting of the roads was not of the very best. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) pointed out that a great deal of money had been spent by the Department in experimental and research work in the construction of roads containing the best non-skid surface, and in the strength of the roads and in other ways. Lighting has been but a secondary consideration, and the Government are now called upon to meet what is an essential requirement of the whole community. I did not listen with surprise to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), because I know the exact circumstances relating to the road to which he called attention, and that there has been a heavy casualty rate upon that road, much greater than was warranted or to be expected by anyone who knows the road.
My purpose this afternoon is not oppose the Amendment but to try and bring home to the Government the need for this work to be done. Not only must it be done by the Government finding the money, but they will have to accommodate themselves to meeting the local authorities throughout the whole of the country before the work can be done. I believe that the work will have to be done under a standardised system of lighting undertaken and laid down by the Minister of Transport or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever may be the managing director of the business. There is a definite percentage of deaths among cyclists at night owing to inadequate lighting, and no Member of the House can gainsay that statement. Some people blame the cyclist, others the motorists and others the lighting of the roads, but whatever the cause maybe, we should, if possible, endeavour to diminish the deaths due to accidents in this direction without considering any question of money. Money can be computed in figures, but death cannot be compensated by the payment of money.
I saw in the Press the other morning that the Government were accused by Mr. Rees Jeffreys, of the Roads Improvement Association, of a 90 per cent. responsibility for deaths on the roads by the appropriation of millions from the Road Fund, which has starved road improvement. That was a very startling and grave statement to be made by the individual in charge of an organisation of that kind. Nevertheless, I think that the statement is true. If we had not starved the roads of money which ought to have been spent upon them, or if the moneys paid into the Road Fund had been utilised for the purposes of the roads, a large number of lives might have been saved. What steps do the Government propose to take to rectify the matter as far as the lighting of roads is concerned? It is a question of great importance and affects, practically speaking, every citizen in Great Britain. We all go on the roads more or less, either inside a car or in some other way, and we are all liable to accidents as the result of being there. Accidents would be reduced very considerably if we had a different method of lighting.
The Government ought to move in the matter. What are they doing to secure uniformity of lighting from district to


district. To have different methods of lighting in nearly every district is undesirable, and does not tend to safety. On the East Lancashire road mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh we find that at the Liverpool and Manchester ends of the road there is a good system of lighting, simply because they connect directly with the two cities, where the system of lighting applies very well throughout the whole of their area, but immediately we leave one or other end of the road and pass into roads in the areas of other urban or rural authorities we find different conditions prevailing. Many of those authorities cannot afford to pay for better lighting, and do not undertake it because it would be too big a burden. I understand that one authority near Manchester, Swinton, are instituting a very good system through their length of road. To have a patchily-lit road, dark in some places and light in others, is a greater danger than having the whole road unlit.
The question of lighting is one of great difficulty. It is a greater difficulty in some areas than in others, and I do not see how it will be overcome except by the Government taking the matter in hand and providing a definite amount of money in order to equalise the burdens of the local authorities, or to place them all in a position whereby they can secure the lighting of their roads in a proper manner without imposing upon them too heavy a, financial responsibility. Greater help from the Road Fund is an absolute necessity. This is one feature of the work of the Road Fund which has not received adequate consideration. I would ask the Minister of Transport to do something practical to reduce the road slaughter. Will he consider sanctioning 100 per cent. grants for Class I roads towards the annual charges on the necessary loans for lighting purposes? This would show a desire to help towards solving the problem of road lighting. It is, of course, only one way, and there are other ways. Has the Minister any data with regard to the loan charges for lighting the roads throughout the country? If so, it would be very interesting to know what it is.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give 100 per cent. will he consider giving 75 per cent. or even 50 per cent. in order to help the local authorities, boroughs and urban, into the position of being able to meet the expenditure

required in order to put proper lights on Class I roads? In mentioning Class I roads I am not leaving out of consideration the other roads, but Class I roads are the best roads we have, and they are the roads on which any experiments ought to be carried out. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) suggested an experiment on the London-Brighton road. The hon. Member for Leigh suggested that the experiment should be on the Manchester-Liverpool road. It matters not to me where the experiment is carried out. A good long stretch of road ought to be taken over by the Government, and they ought to experiment with lighting in such a manner as will give the greatest protection to the people on the road during the period of lighting.
Another matter has been mentioned, and that is the question of the illuminant. Gas and sodium lamps have been mentioned. It has been said that it is a common practice to use electricity for lighting the roads. Has the Minister ever thought of approaching the Electricity Commissioners with the suggestion that they might supply electric current for road lighting at night time at a much cheaper rate than at the present time? During the dark parts of the night some arrangement might be made, through co-operation between the Government and the Electricity Commissioners whereby consumers might be supplied in the off-peak periods with a cheaper commodity. If such cheap rates could be secured, it would undoubtedly assist in solving this problem, and it would certainly solve many of the difficulties of the local authorities. The road mentioned by the hon. Member for Leigh is a high speed road with little or no lighting. I do not think one-fourth of the road is lit. Seventy or 75 per cent. of the road is in complete darkness, except for the islands or roundabouts. Has the Minister any statistics of the number of deaths of cyclists and others in the night time due to accidents on roads, particularly on the Liverpool-Manchester road? Roads are lighted in patches by various local authorities. Why not make road lighting uniform? Running out of a light portion of a road into a dark portion is likely to tend to accidents. There have been many accidents on the Liverpool-Manchester road already, which is one of the largest and best roads in the north.
A further question for consideration is the surfacing of the roads. A great deal of money has been spent in research work and much consideration has been given to the surface of the roads. I have come to the conclusion that lighter-coloured road surfaces, would be an advantage. I understand that we have now a good non-skid material. Is it possible to colour that non-skid material and make it much lighter-coloured in order to help people who are driving in the dark? I do not see why we should not also have white kerb stones. The kerb stones might be whitened by some means or other, because they are a good guide to a person who is driving a car at night. I had an experience in a car recently. We had been out in the afternoon and a fog developed in the evening when we were three miles from home, with the result that we could not see the kerb stone. Cars were coming slowly one after the other and we were only just able to see the tail lights, probably six feet distant. We were all there stranded in a. patch of road and not a motorist could see the kerb, because the kerb was as black as the road, and the road itself was too dark. The dark surfaces on the roads ought to be replaced when possible, and the dark kerb ought to be replaced. That would not be a very expensive thing to do.
The main solution of the problem, however, rests with the Minister of Transport in adopting a standard system of lighting. He might pick out certain Class I roads as an experiment during the present summer-time period, so that the improved system might be put into operation immediately we enter next winter. It may be said that we cannot meet the increased cost. If the Treasury cannot meet the whole of the increased cost, could they find the cost which would be imposed on the local authorities over and above the amount that they are now spending on lighting? Could we not carry out, with the consent of the local authorities, experiments to determine the best methods of road lighting? The local authorities cannot continue to be overburdened by having too much financial responsibility imposed upon them year after year. They are at present overburdened with the cost of roads, and they ought not to be asked to bear any

increased cost. It should be borne by the Treasury or the Road Fund.
The good lighting of roads is always preferable to strong lights on vehicles. It is all very well for motorists to say that they must have powerful lamps on their cars, but it all depends on how the driver uses the powerful lamps on the road. Dazzle is a very great cause of accident. I would very much rather have a road well lit than a vehicle well lit. The practice of abruptly switching off lights, without stopping or slowing down, is obviously dangerous. I am not a motorist, although I sometimes ride in a motor car, and I cannot drive, but it is obvious to me on the roads that many people disregard the dropping of lights or slowing down when passing other vehicles. Less powerful lights on vehicles and more uniform and more powerful lighting of roads would be a great advantage to the whole community. The Government should meet these costs out of the money collected from the motorists. The motorists provide the money, which could he used for experiments in methods of safety lighting. It is not right to expect the motorists to go on finding money year after year when the money is appropriated by the Treasury without it being allocated to the purpose for which it was contributed. It is not fair that the Chancellor of the Exchequer every two or three years should raid the roost. On this occasion he has not only raided the roost but has taken the roost.
Every step possible ought to be taken to provide for safety on the roads. Let the Minister of Transport see that roads built of lighter-coloured materials are provided. Let the roads be illuminated by a national standard power of lighting on all Class I roads, and other roads where possible. Let the Treasury make larger grants to local authorities for this purpose, or meet the cost from the Road Fund. If the safety of our people on the roads is to be safeguarded every effort must be made to eliminate the causes of accidents. No time should be lost in making the necessary experiments in lighting on the roads during the summer period, and all possible encouragement should be given to the local authorities, without fail. That would in some measure assist in relieving unemployment. The hon. Member for Yardley said that it


would cost from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 to introduce proper lighting on the roads, and that it would find employment for 20,000 men. I do not mind what the cost will be, or how many people may be given employment as a result as long as the work is useful and necessary.
I am satisfied that if the money for the purposes I have mentioned was provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the workers would be found in any part of the country to carry out the work during the present summer. Why delay? Money is cheap. There is plenty of surplus labour, and we have the best opportunity available in summer time. If we do what I suggest, it would help to solve one of the most difficult road problems with which we are faced, and would give greater security to our people on the roads. The safety of life and limb is surely one of the most important questions that we can consider. Every hon. Member would make any sacrifice that might be necessary if by doing so we could render the roads of the country more safe for our people, and reduce the appalling number of fatal and non-fatal accidents which occur every year.

4.44 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I should like to make a few remarks on the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). With a great deal of what he said I agree. For instance, when the new Cambridge bypass was made, the lighting was made extremely dangerous at certain points by a big are lamp stuck in the middle of the cross roads. At night considerable difficulty was thereby caused. When the car came along with its headlights on, the lights from the side road and in the main road could not be seen because in the centre of the cross roads there was this big light which prevented a driver seeing other cars coming in an opposite direction. There is some confusion of thought on this matter. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) is right in saying that our roads should be properly lighted, but I think that only main roads in certain areas should be lighted. Where there is confusion of thought is as to the sort of lighting which should be installed. There should be an efficient system of lighting on roads in built-up areas, and here the Ministry of Transport can help. I am glad to think that

for the first time in my 14 years' experience in this House we have a Parliamentary Secretary who I know can drive a motor car; I have been out with him and I know that he drives very well—

Mr. EDE: The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) drives a car.

Sir W. BRASS: I had forgotten the right hon. Member. I was thinking of Ministers on our own side.

Lieut.-Colonel SAND EMAN ALLEN: There is the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon).

Sir W. BRASS: I must apologise if I have made a mistake. It is most important that we should have a uniform system of lighting in built-up areas. There are experts at the Ministry of Transport who can tell us the sort of lighting which ought to be used on our main roads, the standard of lighting which would be the best for the country generally. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his experts should go out at night not only on fine nights but on rainy nights, and see the sort of lighting which exists now. When you have rain on your windscreen there is great difficulty in seeing. They will be able to realise the sort of lighting which ought to obtain generally. I think also that the experts at the Ministry should be consulted by all local authorities so that the improvement will be done on a national basis, not piecemeal, one authority putting in one kind of lighting and another authority putting in another kind. Indeed, I think that money from the Road Fund should be withheld until local authorities comply with the advice which they can get from the experts at the Ministry in connection with lighting, and also in regard to the light surface of the roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan. Great danger exists to-day because of the dark surface of the roads. If the surface was light it would reflect the lights of the car, and the driver would be able to see much farther. You would not need to have anything like such a bright light on the car as you need to have now with the dark surface of the roads.
I also agree that the kerb should be whitened wherever possible, and on roads


which are sufficiently wide two white lines should be laid down, dividing the road into three, not only for the purpose of segregating the traffic, but in order to make the roads clearer at night, and especially in foggy weather. I make that suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in communication with local authorities on this matter and has only to tell them what his experts think about these things to get them done. If we do adopt this system and increase the number of lights on our roads I hope we shall not adopt the stupid law which exists to-day, that because there is a system of street lighting we must have a speed limit of 30 miles an hour regardless of whether there are any houses on the road or not. If we have lights farther into the country I hope it will not mean that we shall have the speed reduced on these open pieces of road.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: I agree with much that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) has said in his admirable speech. The only advocate of darkness to-day is the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I have had a great deal of experience of driving not only of private cars but lorries, and from the point of view of the driver a badly lighted street in wet weather is worse than a dark road. But there is another danger on an indifferently lighted road, and that is the light from other headlights. In bad weather it is difficult to see cyclists or pedestrians. I would suggest that if we are going to have lighting that it should be good. If you have a road which is constantly used at night, as so many roads are now by commercial traffic and private cars, then the ideal is undoubtedly to have it properly lighted.
We like to think that we lead the world in most matters, but in this matter we do not, and there is a considerable experience on the Continent, in Italy and in Germany, where considerable stretches of roads are lighted. I would like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any information as to whether there has been any appreciable reduction in the number of accidents as a result. I think that will be found to be the case. That, however, is a possible line of fruitful inquiry. I agree that to light all the

main roads in country districts would be unnecessary, but I would ask the Minister to make a start in this matter, especially in the built-up areas, in order that the lighting may be standardised. Perhaps the simplest way would be to give a grant. I should prefer that the lighting on all our main roads was taken over from the local authority. That would be most desirable, but, short of that, I think the Ministry should take power to make grants for this purpose. I cannot refrain from saying that I wish this Debate had taken place before yesterday's discussion. This is clearly a case where the funds which have been appropriated from the Road Fund might well have been used for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and for the general convenience and advantage of the whole motoring community.

4.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SAND EMAN ALLEN: I do not want to add much to what has been so well said by other hon. Members, but there are one or two points which I should like to bring forward. The object of road lighting is to give information to the road user, and that is why a plea for a standardised system is so strong. May I make a plea that false information should wherever possible be removed? By that I mean the many advertisement lights and signs, red and green, which are so often confused with traffic signals. When they exist on the edge of the road they convey false information. I hope the Minister will bear this matter in mind and see what powers he can take to remove or alter these signs, in order to make the roads safer and thus reduce the number of accidents. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) suggested that the kerb should be whitened. I would like the Minister to bear in mind that this would mean constant renewal and, therefore, extra expense. There is a system in vogue in many parts of putting in a glass reflector, showing red on one side and white on the other, which is much more helpful in showing the side of the road. I do not want him to plump for one system, but to try any system which will indicate the side of the road to the motor driver. I also want to emphasise the necessity of a standard system of lighting, particularly on main roads, and finally to urge that before any anti-dazzle


regulations are brought in the system of lighting should be thoroughly overhauled.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I would like to approach this subject from a point of view which has not been mentioned by any previous speaker I have heard. It is the way in which this problem is affected by the extraordinary tangle of local government administration. Borough councils are lighting authorities and at the same time highway authorities, but county councils, although in a great part of the country they are responsible as highway authorities for the type of road we have been discussing, are not lighting authorities at all, and cannot spend a penny of their funds upon the lighting of the great high- ways they construct. The rural district councils are not lighting authorities, and in the rural districts the parish councils are responsible. Any hon. Member who has had occasion to try to persuade a parish meeting to agree that the parish shall be rated 3d. in the pound in order to provide lights on one of the great arterial roads that run through the parish, knows how hopeless a task it is.
I suggest to the Minister that, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, he might pay some attention to that side of the problem. It is quite intolerable that along any main road as it passes through a county there should be several urban and borough councils concerned with lighting, and that there should be intervening patches which are in a rural district where the parish council is the authority responsible for providing lighting for that particular highway. It is not to be wondered that they very much resent having that duty placed upon them and that it is exceedingly difficult to persuade them to undertake the task.
I also think it would probably be wise to make the county councils the lighting authorities for the great arterial roads which they construct. An example was given by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment of a case where the lighting for a particular road caused the authority responsible to have a rate of 10s. in the pound, whereas if the lighting had been carried out by the county council, the authority which constructed the road and was responsible for its maintenance, the rate would have been 0.65d. That

seems to me to be an unnecessary tangle and one which would not be tolerated anywhere except in the extraordinary jungle of English local government law.
There is also another reason why the county council ought to be the authority responsible for the lighting. Let me give an illustration in support of my argument. The road from London to Brighton, south of Reigate, runs through the parishes of Honey and Charlwood for little stretches of about 200 yards each. King Alfred the Great or somebody else must, have been in a somewhat peculiar condition when he drew the boundary between those two parishes, because it is a wavy line. Some engineer subsequently planned the road in such a way that it runs across all the waves. The parish of Horley, which is a comparatively rich parish, has no objection to lighting the road, but Charlwood, which is an extremely poor parish, declines to carry out any lighting, the result being that there are patches which are comparatively well lighted, according to the standards of the district, and other patches where there is no lighting at all. That is an indefensible position which would be remedied if the county council were the lighting authority.
I notice with some regret that a campaign is growing up to transfer these roads from the control of the local authorities to that of the Minister of Transport, and I have gathered that the Minister of Transport himself is not without some feeling that he could do the job better than the local authorities. May I say that I think this problem is very much aggravated by the double working of the Local Government Act of 1929, which increased the number of claiming authorities which are able to become responsible for main roads, and by the way in which county councils, rightly for other purposes. increased the area of certain non-claiming authorities until the population became big enough for them to become claiming authorities, with the result that the number of comparatively small urban authorities responsible for the great main roads was unjustifiably increased?
In conclusion, I believe that the main roads should be the responsibility of the county and borough councils and that urban and rural councils should not be responsible for them. If that arrange-


ment could be brought about it would be far easier for the Minister to impose a national standard. I sincerely hope that in giving consideration to the many excellent technical suggestions that have been made to-day—and with the majority of which I wholeheartedly agree—the Minister will not lose sight of the law which is involved and that he will, at least so far as main roads are concerned, make the county council and not the rural parish the lighting authority.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. GUY: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has undoubtedly indicated one of the difficulties of administration in this matter. As hon. Members may see from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the interim report of the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting, the position in Scotland in that connection is not quite as serious as it is in England, but as far as I can discover, the standard of lighting is no better in Scotland than it is in England. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) adequately dealt with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), but I think there would have been more force in the objection which' the hon. Member for Central Leeds put forward to this lighting improvement if there were only motor cars on the highways. The hon. Member seemed to ignore the fact that there are cyclists and pedestrians, and that if the motorists are to rely upon their own lights there is inevitably introduced the element of dazzle, which makes it more likely that the pedestrian or the cyclist may be run over.
Most of the points I intended to raise have already been dealt with by hon. Members, and there is only one other contribution I would like to make to the Debate. I would utter a word of warning to the Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand is to reply, in connection with the suggestion that there should be a revolution in the lighting system, and that responsibility should even be taken away from the local authorities and given to a central board. Undoubtedly there is some force in that argument, but I think it might be wiser to proceed carefully and slowly in co-operation with the local authorities who, after all, know the local conditions. If a standard

system were suddenly adopted, the result might be that in two or three years' time the system so adopted would be discovered to be obsolete. For instance, if the overhead system of lighting were adopted, it might eventually be found that the concealed system of lighting was far better. I hope that no large-scale remedy will be attempted, but that rather there will be small-scale experiments. All sorts of experiments have been tried not only on the Continent but in America, as the Mover of the Amendment explained. I believe that the Ministry also have an experimental section, and it would be interesting to know what experiments have been carried out. When the experiments have been made and when the improvement is being carried into effect, I do hope that the Ministry and the local authorities will not be carried away by the idea of having to adopt a standardised system of lighting throughout the country.
I agree that patchy and inadequate lighting is highly dangerous. What is wanted more than anything else is the provision of adequate and safe lighting in appropriate places, for instance, at corners and in built-up areas. Another instance which comes to my mind is the place where the ordinary street lights end, and the motorist goes into darkness. At that very point it often happens that the footpath ends and the pedestrian has to walk on the roadway. There ought in such places to be special lighting. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be encouraged by the speeches which have been made in the course of the Debate, and that he will be able to frame his Estimates next year in such a way that there will be little doubt that he will be able to spend all the money that he can obtain.

5.13 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I cannot help being rather glad that the unfortunate event which prevented Mr. Speaker from leaving the Chair before Easter has now given my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) an opportunity of so ably moving this Amendment. I was rather struck by the opening observation of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he said that a big change of the kind which is suggested in the


Amendment would require the full backing of the House before it could be brought into effect. I think that is obvious. If the Government did intend to take over the lighting of the Class 1 roads of this country, before they thought of bringing such a scheme before the House they would need to be fairly certain that it had fairly universal approval.
Any discussion which may have the effect of reducing road casualties is always of great interest to this House, and I think I may say that, with one slight dissenting voice, there has been almost universal approval of the principle of the Amendment. I can assure the House that I shall not be a dissenting voice. The subject matter of the Amendment is also of particular interest because of the publication in September last of the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting. I hope that if any hon. Members who take an interest in this subject have not read that report they will do so, because it covers practically every point which has been raised. I would add that copies of the report have been sent to all the local authorities concerned. The main part of the report is technical Paragraphs 16 to 37 discuss the standard of lighting which the Committee consider should be adopted, and I strongly recommend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) to read those paragraphs. It is understood that the final report of the committee—and this is rather important—will in the main be an amplification of these technical recommendations. We hope to have the full report next year. The production of the final report is taking some time owing to the carrying out of a number of experiments with a view to ascertaining the exact type of lighting that is required.
For that reason we want to give time for the experiments to be completed before the report is finally presented, but I understand that the final report will be an amplification of these recommendations and therefore the lighting authorities have definite recommendations in outline on which they can consider the provision of new or improved lighting systems. I think we can say that the ideal at which we should aim in the lighting of our roads is to achieve a standard of lighting that will be adequate for police purposes and will allow motor vehicles to

proceed at a reasonable speed without headlights. We can sum up in that sentence what we are aiming at, and if hon. Members read the interim report they will see that what the Committee regard as a reasonable speed is 30 miles an hour. Originally street lighting was for police purposes only and for the safety of pedestrians. Later it was also in order to avoid the use of glaring headlights. The ideal would be the achievement of both those purposes.
There is one very interesting point in the report which was dealt with by the Mover of the Amendment. Paragraph 16 states that representatives of the motoring organisations, while regarding efficient street lighting as directly contributory to road safety, were unable to point to any but occasional accidents caused by bad lighting. That view is confirmed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. That is a very extraordinary thing. We are endeavouring by the use of statistics to find what truth there is in that statement. The committee add that lighting which is patchy may be worse than no lighting at all and I think that is a view which is generally held in the House.
The only figures which we have at present with which we can test the theory which I have just mentioned are those contained in the Report on Fatal Road Accidents, made in 1933. During 1935 there was a fresh report but the figures have not yet been collated and the report is not yet available. That is a pity, because 1933 now seems to us to be a considerable time ago. But I would like to give the figures which are available because they were asked for by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). There were, in 1933, in round figures, 7,000 fatal accidents. Of these the number that occurred in daylight was 4,500 and the number that occurred at night was 2,500. Of the last-mentioned number, 368 occurred in dusk or semi-darkness; 696 occurred where there was no street lighting; 373 occurred where there was poor street lighting, and 1,040 occurred in what is described as good street lighting. I would like to emphasise the fact that, in practice, what is called good street lighting would not come up to the standard recommended by the Departmental Committee. There was one case in which the street lighting had been extinguished, but we need not consider that at the moment.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Could the House be given the comparative volumes of traffic in relation to these figures.

Captain HUDSON: There are further figures which I shall give later, but what I am endeavouring to find out and what the House is endeavouring to find out is the effect of bad lighting on accidents and I think these figures are significant. We see that 35 per cent. of the accidents happened at night and of these, 1,040, or 40 per cent. of the accidents which happened at night, were in places described as having good street lighting whereas 60 per cent. were in places where the lighting was poor or non-existent. Those figures are very interesting.
There is one other table, which will help us in arriving at a conclusion, to be found on pages 22 to 25 of the report. It shows the percentage of accidents occurring at different times, and from it we find that from midnight to 6 a.m. the percentage was 2.5; from 6 a.m. to noon it was 19.4; from noon to 6 p.m. it was 41.9 and from 6 p.m. to midnight it was 36.2. I think those figures show that an undue proportion of accidents happen at night and it has to be remembered that during that time there is much less traffic on the road, in proportion to the whole 24 hours of the day, than there is in the day time. There is a comparatively small amount of commercial traffic and there are also fewer private cars. We must also recognise that in the hours after dark there is the factor of the fatigue of the driver, but we need not go into that question now. The hon. Member for Yardley had some interesting figures which pointed to the same conclusion, and I think it will be agreed generally that the number of accidents which occur after dark is too high, and that if we can do so we ought to improve the lighting of our roads.
That is our problem. Now we must see how best we can deal with it. The Amendment suggests a national scheme of lighting. Neither the Minister of Transport nor any other Minister of a Department has power to make grants, whether out of the Road Fund or from the Treasury. Therefore legislation will be required. The Departmental Committee estimate that lighting of the high standard which they suggest would cost from £300 to £400 per mile per annum. If we accept

their estimate, and if lighting to this standard were provided on all classified roads in county boroughs and on 20 per cent. of the classified roads in counties, the cost would be about £3,500,000 a year. An hon. Member asked me whether I could give the cost of lighting all the Class I roads of the country. I am afraid I cannot do so, but the figure of £3,500,000 a year covers, I think, all roads which are generally considered to be trunk roads and all the roads which I think every Member who has spoken has had in mind. The Ministry of Transport agree that the creation of a national standard of lighting over the whole country, for what may be called the most important roads, is the goal to be attained, and we are trying our best to move towards it. In view of the already generals grants to the maintenance of roads the Government do not feel at the present moment and in existing circumstances that they can contemplate the necessary legislation to that end.
I do not want the House, however, to think that that means that the question of a national standard of lighting is indefinitely shelved. What I have said does not rule out the possibility of future action. In the meantime we have to await the final report of the Departmental Committee and certain experiments which we are making. It merely means that I cannot stand at this Box now and promise to the House that an immediate grant will be made. Incidentally, I would refer to the impression which seems to be held by some hon. Members that the fact that the Road Fund is to reuse makes a tremendous difference in regard to the making of grants in cases like this. I do not think they realise that every grant from the Road Fund has to be approved by the Treasury. The Minister himself cannot, as some Members seem to think, make a big grant to any new road scheme which he thinks desirable. He cannot do so without Treasury approval, Road Fund or no Road Fund. Therefore the fact that the Government do not feel at the moment that they can pass legislation dealing with this subject has nothing to do with the question of the existence or non-existence of the Road Fund.
I do not want the House to think that we consider the present position satisfactory. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.


What happens now is that in boroughs and urban districts the respective councils are the lighting authorities and in rural districts the rural district council or parish council may be the lighting authority. In the more populous areas—and this point was made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—the unit is large enough and wealthy enough to provide a unified lighting system and nobody can contend that all over the country the lighting of the roads is bad. On the other hand, the smaller authorities are often unable to provide anything more than a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, perhaps a few lamps in a village or something of that kind. Therefore there is a definite recommendation in the interim report showing that the committee consider that it might be desirable for street lighting to be confined to large administrative units, following the model of the Local Government Act of 1929 which transferred road powers to the county councils and the larger urban districts. That, in effect, was the case made by the hon. Member for South Shields.

Mr. E D E: No, I object to urban districts in a county being highway authorities and I would abolish the claiming authorities as well.

Captain HUDSON: The hon. Member wishes it to be confined to the counties?

Mr. EDE: Counties and county boroughs only.

Captain HUDSON: I would point out that Parliament has already given thought to this matter. Under the Road Traffic Act of 1934, Section 23, county councils are enabled, where they consider that roads should be lit or better lit and in default of action by the appropriate lighting authority, themselves to exercise lighting powers and charge the cost to the county rate. This Section was inserted, I am told, at the request of the County Councils Association. It may be said that the county councils have not used this power to any great extent. They have only had the power since 1934 and we still hope that they may make greater use of it. In order to encourage them to do so we have sent them a letter, as recently as 27th April, calling their attention to the report and urging them to use their powers under the Act in suitable cases. We do hope that the county

councils will use this power and will set up within their areas a really adequate system of lighting.
I do not think there is any other point which was raised, though there were certain detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Wigan and certain suggestions which he made which, I can only tell him, we shall consider. As regards road surfaces, he will find a very interesting paragraph in the interim report on that subject, which is one which we at the Ministry are considering very carefully. The hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) raised the point of extraneous lighting signs and advertisements which get mixed up with traffic signals. That point also is dealt with under paragraph 35, and I agree with what he said on the subject. I can only assure the House that the Ministry of Transport is fully alive to the problem of street lighting and is studying the whole subject with great care. The return which is now being made of all accidents involving personal injury will give us a much better indication, we think—and I think the House will agree—as to the exact effects of bad lighting than the two fatal accident returns to which reference has been made in the Debate.
As I have said, while we cannot promise immediate national action to set up a national lighting system for the whole country, we are endeavouring to enlarge the areas as suggested by the committee and thus to ensure greater uniformity. We are experimenting, but we are not prepared at the moment to come forward with a complete scheme to put before the House. If this Debate has done nothing else, I hope the publicity given to the subject will have drawn the attention of the more backward authorities to the inadequacy of their lighting arrangements and will determine them to make an improvement; that would strengthen the hands of the Government, should they decide to take action at some future date. I believe that by our rules if Mr. Speaker is to leave the Chair, this Amendment has either to be negatived or withdrawn. I hope we shall not have to negative it, because I think every hon. Member is in favour of it. Perhaps therefore the hon. Member for the Yardley division will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the fact that we have had this interesting discussion on it.

Mr. SALT: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I take this opportunity, on behalf not only of Members on this side of the House but of a good many Members on all sides of the House to raise the subject of the Ullswater Committee's report on broadcasting, and to initiate a debate and, if the Government so wish it, to obtain a statement of their views. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General would now say whether the Government would like to make a statement at an early stage or would prefer to have a general debate before making any statement.

5.35 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for raising this question. I have been looking forward to this Debate for some time. The Government are giving the closest attention and a great deal of work to this subject, but they are very anxious to have the advantage of hearing the views of Members in all parts of the House on it. There has been a very strong move asking that no Government proposals shall be put forward until such a debate as this has occurred, so that the Government are anxious to have a debate on the report of the Ullswater Committee, and they will then at once proceed to consider the situation in the light of the valuable information which they have had and of knowing the views of the House upon the subject.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I will base my remarks on the report. As the House is aware, we are now actually initiating the discussion which is to decide whether the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation shall or shall not be renewed and, if so, what its terms shall be. The Ullswater Committee, very rightly, I think, begins by reminding us all that the British Broadcasting Corporation is

really a quite new political invention which, in the sphere in which we work, is about as novel and ingenious as the wireless itself. It is an attempt to combine a public service with the possibilities of commercial management, and the solution, it is suggested, might be found by placing the service in the Government, in public ownership, not by conducting it like a Government Department, but by I leaving it to a body of men and women who would act as trustees of the national interests without the ordinary commercial motives behind their work.
That is an experiment, and I think it is satisfactory that the broad results of the investigation by the Ullswater Committee is that the experiment in its main outline is completely vindicated. They recommend that it shall he continued and that it shall be continued with more generous financial support. In saying this, I think it is only fair to point out that, as I shall make some criticism of the administration later on, in vindicating the experiment the Ullswater Committee is, as a matter of fact, paying its tribute to the persons who have administered it, from the Director-General downwards. I say that because of some observations which I shall make later, and I would myself pay my recognition to the fact that under this administration, broadcasting in this country, which might have adopted the more or less easy-going standards of the films, or even of the popular Press, is, as a matter of fact, recognised as a healthy and indeed an elevating influence, and, as the committee points out, is being taken as a model by other countries in the world.
Undoubtedly, the chief point which is raised by the system adopted is the relationship between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Government. The American system, where the whole enterprise is in private hands, does not raise the delicate questions that ours does, but broadcasting here is in the last resort under absolute Government control. The Corporation has got to issue any matters sent to it from Government Departments, and the Postmaster-General can forbid it from delivering any broadcast, either on a particular item or on a whole class of items, by orders from himself. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the committee, are he does make a reference in his reservation to the manner


in which during or just before the election of 1931 the Government, in his opinion, used this power. He says there was a series of Government broadcasts without any reply and that in addition the British Broadcasting Corporation itself issued a series of almost semi-official statements from the Director or officials of the Bank of England, which were probably all very tendentious in their observations. I am not going to enter into that further, except to call the attention of the House to it, but I think those remarks are right at the heart of the subject. If the Government did get anything like the habit of controlling broadcasting, we should be well on the way to the spectacle which may be seen on the Continent of Europe, where, under Government ownership, broadcasting is being used really to turn the people into a population almost of robots.
I welcome for that reason the policy of the Postmaster-General in this Debate, under which he says, "Let the House discuss this subject quite freely, and then, rather on the basis of the discussion, let the Government consider what shall be done." I welcome that, because in my opinion, to begin with, the British Broadcasting Corporation must regard it as a duty to pay the most careful attention to observations made in Debates in this House, not to Resolutions, because there will not be many, but the general tone of the Debates. If they do that, my own opinion is that the House can guide the development and the tendencies of the Corporation better than can the Government themselves. I was not in the House at the time, but I was very much impressed, in the Debate which took place here three years ago, in 1933, by what I thought was the common sense of the House.
When I was at the Post Office there had been a question as to what we were going to do about broadcasts on Communism, atheism and heterodox views of that kind. I had not to decide it, but in practice up to 1933 the British Broadcasting Corporation had prevented the broadcasting of those views, and the Postmaster-General, by his advice to the House at that time, rather suggested that he thought such views should not be permitted to be broadcast. But I was impressed by noticing how, even after a series of speeches by the right hon. Mem-

ber for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and Mr. John Buchan, as he then was, as a matter of fact the House took the matter into its own hands and practically said that even the most heterodox views should be permitted to come to the microphone, provided the opposite views and replies were at the same time given. I believe it would be generally admitted that that was a right decision, but it was not a decision that had been taken either by the Corporation or by the Postmaster-General at that time.
For that reason, I hope the Government will accept the proposal in the report that the Minister in charge of broadcasting should be a Cabinet Minister without heavy departmental duties. To begin with, I think it would make Debates in this House much more valuable. At present the ordinary Debates take place on the Estimates of the Post Office. Very often the Postmaster-General makes no reference to broadcasting at all in his opening speech, and all that he can do at the end of the Debate is to pick up any point about broadcasting that has been mentioned and refer to them at the same time as he refers to points in connection with pillar boxes, telephone exchanges, mail bag robberies, and general Post Office administrative topics. There is another reason why I think this would be a valuable change. The Minister would not often interfere with the Corporation, but on the occasions when he did interfere it would be on a major issue such as we are discussing now which would become almost inevitably a Cabinet decision. In these circumstances, it would be better for the decision and for the Corporation if the Minister were a Member of the Cabinet.
With regard to the internal life of the Corporation, the Ullswater Committee suggests that the time has arrived for the Corporation to include among its employes staff Associations and trade unions, if necessary. The proposal for staff associations is mild to a degree, and it is surprising that even this mild proposal is obviously resented by the Corporation. It has attempted to create public opinion against it, and it summoned the staff to have a vote. The vote was against the proposal, but as each meeting was presided over by the head


of the section of the department to which I the staff belonged, I do not attach very much importance to it. I do not know of any civil servants, teachers, or university professors who do not have staff associations whenever they have an opportunity, and I cannot believe that the employés of the Corporation are the only people in the country who do not want one.
When I was at the Post Office I got the impression that the internal life of the British Broadcasting Corporation was not particularly happy. I still have the impression that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a very temperamental institution from the top to the bottom. We have had complaints coming to us every day in the last few days. We cannot investigate them, but it does appear to me that, from the point of view of the Corporation itself, the best and first reply to these complaints would be if there were trade unions or a staff organisation inside the Corporation which could investigate complaints on behalf of the staff.
There is another point I would raise about the internal administration. The Corporation employ all manner of different types of people. It is a unique institution. It is a Government Department in one aspect, and in other aspects it is a concert agency, a university extension movement, and a music hall. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a State Church."] You cannot have the usual methods of appointment and tenure of office among all these individuals. I realise that in the first 10 years there must have been personal appointments and that it was rather like the Ministry of Munitions during the War. The Corporation, however, has now been in existence for 10 years, and it is time that, so far as the backbone of the administrative staff is concerned, their position should be regularised, the members of the staff should be given proper tenure of appointments, and they should not be in the position that their appointments can be terminated on three months' notice. No man works well under the influence of fear. For that reason I hope that the Postmaster-General will impress on the Corporation the necessity of staff associations and of putting the staff on a basis of greater security.
The other two questions I desire to raise will arouse more interest than those with which I have dealt. There is the question of the relay exchanges, which used to be called wireless exchanges. This is a new name for the system by which in a town or an area a company or a firm provide by wire wireless programmes to subscribers through a good powerful receiving set. The system is of great convenience to many people. They pay about 1s. 6d. a week and all they need is a loud speaker which they can hire for another 6d. a week. It saves them the expense and trouble of buying and maintaining a receiving set of their own, which is not likely to be as good as the powerful central set of the relaying station. There are about 200,000 of these subscribers already, and nearly 350 relay exchanges. I have recently found more interest taken in them than in anything else connected with broadcasting. I have received more communications, more telegrams and more protests from the most surprising sources than on any other aspect of the subject, and I have on inquiry found that there is more than £1,000,000 invested in them. These relay exchanges have been given licences by the Post Office without charge. They are for short periods and terminate on the 31st December next. They were taken with full knowledge of these terms and when they terminate the Post Office have the right to take over the plant and equipment on tramway terms.
The Ullswater Committee proposes, with one reservation only, that these relay exchanges should now be transferred and taken over by the Post Office working on behalf of the Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office controlling the technical side and the Corporation the programme side. Even Lord Selsdon, who makes the reservation, does not do so because he does not wish the Post Office to take them over; he merely says that he does not believe the system of audio-frequency on which they are at present working has any future, but that the system of high frequency has a future. He only wants the Post Office to have the relay exchanges for two years in order that they can make a series of experiments, lest they should take over a lot of equipment that was useless and obsolete. This is obviously a question for the House to give its views upon. I suggest that


if we look at the question from both the technical point of view and the point of view of the public service, the case for taking over these relay exchanges is really overwhelming.
On the technical side, each subscriber has to have two wires wandering about the air, and if he wants two programmes lie has to have four wires to his house. If we are to rationalise the process and carry it on economically, it would be far more economical for the system of wiring to be controlled by the Post Office, which has a whole department for dealing with wires and with the enormous mass of telegraph and telephone wires with which it is already concerned. Apart from that there are powerful technical reasons if we consider future developments. Most people think that Lord Selsdon is right and that the future development will be high frequency transmission. I am now talking of the telephone subscribers who are using the relay stations. By this system of transmission you can over a single telephone wire send a number of programmes. You can send two programmes and a television programme as well, and, at the same time, interfere in no way with telephone messages. If that be the development of the future, it is obvious that the whole thing must be in the hands of the administration which controls the telephone system.
The arguments from the point of view of public service are more powerful than the technical arguments. There is a lot of money in this business, and it is better that the money should come to the State rather than to private individuals. A great many of the companies who run these relay exchanges are doing very well because they are skimming off the cream of the business. They have established themselves in fairly crowded areas where short lengths of wire will serve a great many people at not much expenditure, and, as a consequence, the companies are making good profits. That, however, is not the point of view of a public service. We are back here in the same position as we had in the days before the penny post, or the old days of the National Telephone Company. The whole policy of the Post Office is to give a good service on equal terms to as large a number of the population as possible.
Take the case of relay exchanges. Some areas in the country are rather hilly and

the ordinary wireless subscriber cannot get good reception, but if he were joined up with a relay exchange he could be given good reception. It may not be an area where there is a profit to be made, for it may be, sparsely populated, and under the present system it will not get a relay station because it has no commercial value. Therefore, it is clear on public grounds that this system should be brought into the general broadcasting system. It is not really a question of private enterprise versus Socialism, for broadcasting is already a public concern. The question we have now to consider is whether, having set up a public concern, we are going to inject into it firms working on the basis of ordinary commercial enterprise and not working in with the policy of the public concern. For that reason it is inevitable that we should take over these stations if we are to give the whole population an equal service on more or less equal terms.
I should like to conclude what I have to say by referring to one other fairly controversial subject, which, I think, is rather a matter of Post Office administration, to which the report refers. It concerns the advertising programmes which come to this country from Luxemburg and a number of French stations. The Post Office has endeavoured to deal with those programmes, has discouraged them, and I think the House, when it hears the circumstances in which they are being broadcast, will see that the Post Office can scarcely take any other view. I am not going to discuss the question of taste in programmes; other Members will do that. But take the Luxemburg programme. Why is any Luxemburg programme possible? Because Luxemburg has stolen a wave length. It is a pirate. [Interruption.] My own view is, however the British Broadcasting Corporation did the work, that if programmes are sent out for purely commercial purposes you will get a certain number of the public who will listen to them. But the position with regard to Luxemburg is that they have stolen a wave length. They were given by the International Convention a wave length of 230 metres, such as was suitable to a small area. Warsaw had at that time a wave length given to it which it did not take up, and Luxemburg seized it, and refuses to give it up because of the profit it is making out of it.
For British financial concerns to use this system and then to plead that they are performing a great public service and ought to be allowed to continue to use this system, is not permissible, because if everybody did what Luxemburg is doing they could not use that system or any other. All broadcasting, national and international, would become impossible, and in these circumstances it seems to me clear that the Post Office have the duty, and even the right, to endeavour to bring to an end a system which does depend upon a flagrant breach of an international convention. Those are the points which I should like the Government to bear in mind.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) dealt with wireless exchanges, or relay exchanges, as they are sometimes called, and I am intervening in this Debate because of my close association with this section of the industry for many years. I have seen it grow from an industry in which a few thousand families were connected to wireless exchanges until now the number has become 250,000, and in place of the few thousand pounds originally invested in the industry, there is now £1,500,000 invested. In my intervention I shall endeavour to state what I believe to be best in the national interest, and to subordinate whatever personal or private views I may have. The hon. Member referred to audio-frequency and said that it had no future. A colleague of mine who has just returned from America tells me that over a number of years they have been experimenting with high frequency and have spent something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 dollars upon those experiments, but have now given them up and have returned to the low-frequency, the audio-frequency method, which is being so successfully operated in this country. Experiments have also been conducted in this country and elsewhere into high-frequency methods, and in this age of scientific development no one can say what the future may hold in store, but for the next few years, at any rate, it is extremely doubtful whether a better method than the existing one will be found.
The hon. Member also said that it would be an advantage from the technical

point of view if the Post Office operated this service, because four wires were necessary for one subscriber, if he wanted two programmes, and two wires for one programme. That is not the case. Those four wires can feed 500 subscribers. It is not like the telephone, where one wire is used for each subscriber. These four wires run round and may feed as many as 400 or 500 or 600 families, their houses being tapped off. A short tributary wire runs into the house from the main feeders, and the occupant of the house has his switch with which to select his programme and also his loud speaker, as the hon. Member correctly stated.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It would be interesting to have some more technical information. The hon. Member says the houses can be tapped off, but are there not four leads-in?

Mr. WAKEFIELD: There are four separate wires running from house to house throughout the town. A switch box is placed under the eaves of a house, and an internal lead is led down from that switch box to the inside of the house. The main feeder wires carry on. The system is very similar to that employed in the distribution of water, gas and electricity, where there is a common pipe or wire to feed a large number of consumers. It is different from the telephone system, where there is one wire required for each person. The hon. Member suggested that if the Post Office undertook this work all these wires would be done away with, that there would be no mass of wires such as he suggests exists now, but that is not so. If we were to adopt the telephone system we should have to have a single wire for each subscriber, and in each subscriber's house there would have to be a wireless set. The thing could not be done merely with a switch and a loud speaker. There would be a multiplicity of wires if it were done on the telephone system, in place of the very few wires now required. The present system has been accepted by the local authorities in many towns throughout the country. It is in existence in many seaside places, where the amenities have to be studied for the sake of the visitors, and the wires are found to be quite unobtrusive.
Another point is that only about 5 per cent. of the subscribers to relay services are on the telephone, and if the Post


Office confined its energies to connecting up only telephone subscribers the relay service would not be available to the very many people, including working people in industrial areas, who prefer this method of wireless reception. The hon. Member went on to submit that as a public service this should not be in the hands of private enterprise, and that the present operators of it skimmed the cream of the business and left out bad areas. I think I can say that in every area where there are a few thousand houses and where it has been possible to obtain permission a relay service has been established. No relay service can be established in this country without first securing permission from the local authority for the wires to cross the streets; and except in the case of scattered villages and small hamlets this wireless relay service has been established wherever permission has been given. If the Government carried these wires to isolated farm houses and hamlets all over the country the taxpayer would have to find some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 every year, because it would not be an economic proposition. Even if it is desired to have the telephone service in a country area large payments have to be made if there is no telephone line in existence there already, or a number of subscribers must be guaranteed before the Post Office will undertake to provide the service. These are considerations to be borne in mind.
Now I should like to deal with some of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee. Anxiety has been expressed lest relay systems should be used to disseminate advertisements or betting news from stations abroad. Under the licence issued by His Majesty's Postmaster-General to which reference has already been made, the Postmaster-General has complete control over what is relayed by these wireless exchanges. He can forbid any items, and in the licence it is expressly forbidden to any relay exchange to relay anything in English from a foreign station which savours of political or religious propaganda. As to betting news it will be recalled that about a year ago this House decided that sweepstake news should not be published in the newspapers and the Postmaster-General informed the relay exchanges that they were not permitted to relay this news and they do not do it.

Information about football pools is published in the newspapers and the wireless exchanges merely do what the newspapers do. But the Postmaster-General has complete powers to prohibit anything if he thinks fit to do so.
Then it is stated in the report that the wireless exchanges are in a position materially to damage the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of their material from foreign sources, selecting some parts of the Corporation's programme and omitting others. That is perfectly true, but I think that criticism could be quite easily met if in future licences—should it be decided that wireless exchanges are to be allowed to continue to work under private enterprise —it were provided that the exchanges must confine at least one programme to the national programme, and that the British Broadcasting Corporation, as is its usual practice, should continue to send out controversial matter upon that national programme. If that were so there would then be no unbalancing of the programmes, because as the alternative programme the relay exchanges could give either the regional programme or a selection of other programmes as they pleased. The wireless exchanges serve small and specialised areas and if the British Broadcasting Corporation include a talk on pigs in one of their programmes it is clear that that can have little or no interest to tenement dwellers in the middle of London. A programme from abroad of greater entertainment value to subscribers of a relay exchange would accordingly be substituted.
What is the criticism of wireless exchanges? It is merely that they give what the public require. At the engineering office of a wireless exchange there are load meters which tell exactly which programme is popular and which is unpopular. At those exchanges, one can see when people switch from one programme to an alternative programme. Therefore there are indisputable facts to show which programmes are popular and which are unpopular. I suggest that it is possibly not desired that the public should have an avenue through the wireless exchanges of involuntarily expressing their opinion, for if, as is suggested in the recommendations of the report, those programmes were put into the


hands of the British Broadcasting Corporation, there would not be the same openness about what is popular and what is not, among the listening public.
I have had, as I know other Members have had, many letters on this subject, and I propose to read a typical one:
It is with regret that I hear that the Government is considering taking over all relays and running them on the Post Office system. Why should we have programmes which the British Broadcasting Corporation pick for us? At present we have to rely on foreign stations to make wireless worth having. We pay 10s. licence, the same as people with private sets, and they can have their own choice of station. We have been satisfied with relay as it is now for several years.
If this recommendation of the report is adopted, it means class legislation and differentiation. It means that the wireless exchange, which is a collective receiving set, will not be permitted to give to its subscribers that which the individual person, with his own receiving set, is able to get. I suggest that before entering upon a dictatorship of the air we should be very careful. That is the sort of thing that is happening in certain foreign countries. In Japan, for example, individual wireless sets and relay systems must only give the national stations and programmes. In Germany the relay systems are under national and municipal control. In the Broadcasting Committee's Report this reference is made on page 42 to the standardised set:
We are informed that in Germany, by co-operation between the broadcasting authority and the wireless trade, a standardised receiver has been designed and is sold at a low fixed price, and that this procedure has enabled a larger proportion of the population to become listeners.
I am informed by the Radio Manufacturers' Association, the representative body of this industry, that that is not quite the case. The Radio Manufacturers' Association questioned the source from which the committee received their information, and learned that the Volksempfanger was not produced by cooperation between the broadcasting authority and the trade, but was constructed by the manufacturers on direct instructions from the German Ministry of Propaganda, the set being deliberately designed to receive only transmissions from the German National Station and

the local transmitter. I suggest that we do not want that sort of thing in this country. We have freedom and liberty here. As long as wireless exchanges perform their function and are reasonably controlled—they are under absolute control now by the existing licence—I suggest that they be permitted to continue to carry out the functions which they are performing with considerable satisfaction.
In order that there may be no excuse and no leakage, I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that a relay board should be instituted which would be in a position to license and supervise the operation and extension of wireless exchanges and to see that no irregularities took place. The board would relieve the Post Office, and would be similar in some ways to the Betting Control Board, although smaller, and it might serve a very useful purpose. A further constructive proposal is that all wireless exchanges should have at least two circuits, two programmes, so as to be able to give an alternative programme. There should be the national programme, upon which controversial matter could be listened to, and another line which could be used with reasonable discretion, according to the wishes of subscribers in the different localities of the country. In order that the standard of efficiency might be of the very best, the Post Office Engineering Department could lay down high standards, so that the very best service could be given to the public.
Reference has been made by an hon. Member to the fact that there are 350 or so wireless exchanges throughout the country. If it is desired to improve the service, the board which I have suggested could he empowered to license and group a number of exchanges in various districts. In that way it would be possible to create several large companies to provide a first-class and satisfactory service in all districts and under proper supervision. I am making these proposals for consideration, because I believe that along those lines some of the wishes expressed by hon. Members might be met while leaving the industry in the hands of private enterprise. The proposed board could recommend to the local authorities operators suitable for operating in the particular localities, thereby obviating many of the difficulties, which now face wireless exchanges.
From a national point of view, every encouragement should be given to this new industry. The view has been expressed on many occasions in this House that the best way in which any industry can be developed is through the medium of private enterprise. If it is felt that there is a national need for these changes, the best way they could be made rapidly and quickly would be to assist private enterprise to do it. If there were a board, as I suggest, to license and supervise a number of reasonably large companies throughout the country, the Post Office could take the system over more easily if at any time it were desirable to do so, than if there were many small companies operating. The position for taking over now is not satisfactory for the Post Office. It is not the same as the position of the Telephone Service, because it has been operating for only a few years. When the Telephone Service was taken over, it had been operating for some 25 years.
I saw in the report that one of the reasons for recommending that the Post Office should take over was based on analogy between the wireless relay service and the postal and telephone services, but surely that is a false analogy. The relay service is part of the wireless trade, although only a very small part at present. When the telephones were taken over, there was only one way in which you could send a letter, telegraph or use the telephone, because they were all in the hands of the State. The relay service is an alternative service, but if the suggestion of nationalising it is carried to the logical conclusion, the whole of the wireless industry must be nationalised. The Government must sell, and service and supply wireless sets. Otherwise they would he in competition with private enterprise. The Government would be operating a relay service similar to the alternative services of private enterprise. That is a position which has never arisen before and which would be very unsatisfactory for everybody concerned. I hope those points may be considered at the proper time.
I have deviated for a moment. I was speaking of the national importance of wireless stations. It may not be generally realised that in time of national emergency, or of war, the big transmitting stations could very easily be put out

of action, when the country would be left in a difficult position. People would be without news. They might be in shelters below ground during an air raid, and at that time it would be important that their morale should be maintained. With a wired network through the towns and urban areas, it would be possible and easy to put over an entertainment service and to give news to people in their shelters and homes, and to keep them happy and their morale upon a high level. For that reason, every encouragement to expand should be given to this new industry.
With that object in view, I ask that a long tenure, at least 10 years, to coincide with the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation, be given to wireless exchanges, so that they can plan ahead and develop with the best material, and build on a sound basis. If this be done, it will be found that the exchanges fulfil a national need. They will be there in case of national emergency, and at all times there will be that control which, I agree, is essential to prevent abuses or interference with the national interest. Having made those remarks, I hope the House will appreciate that I have endeavoured to speak from my personal experience of the operation of this industry and have tried to put forward views in the national interest while keeping my own personal interests away from the matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. HULBERT: While I have been a Member of this House I have seen the unvarying courtesy with which new Members are treated. I am sure that the same courtesy will be extended to me this afternoon. I wish to speak upon the question of relay stations. I have no interest whatever in the industry, and I have never had the good fortune even to try one of the alternative programmes which they supply. The notes which I have in my hand have been supplied to me by constituents of my own who have for the past two years made all possible use of this service, and also by the Chamber of Commerce in my division. An hon. Member opposite has suggested that the position of relay exchanges is analogous to that of telephones and broadcasting, but I think that that is an error, because, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for


Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), relay reception forms only one small part of the means of radio reception in this country.
Dealing with the general question, I think that most listeners will agree on the whole that the British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes are not too bad. They are not perfect; if they were perfect, the foreign broadcasting stations that we hear at times when the British Broadcasting Corporation is inactive would not exist. But these relay exchanges surely serve a section of the community who cannot afford to buy the expensive wireless sets which would be necessary to enable them to enjoy the same type of programme as is given by the relay service. It would seem that to nationalise these services, and have them taken over by the State at a possible loss, would be the first step to nationalising the whole manufacture of wireless sets. We do not want the manufacture of any instrument of entertainment to be in the hands of the Government.
There is a very important point that would arise if the Government took over these services, and that is the collection of the weekly rental of 1s. 6d. One hesitates to think that a Government Department would be disposed to employ these weekly collectors, while, if the rental were to be paid on a quarterly or annual basis, it would impose a real hardship on a great many listeners. There is also an important point with regard to the 10s. licence which every person who has one of these sets has to have, in the same way as the owner of a normal wireless receiving set. I am given to understand that the relay companies are not allowed to connect one of their loud speakers into a house until they have given an undertaking to the Post Office that the person concerned holds a wireless licence, and in that way the Post Office have a guarantee that there shall be no default in taking out a licence by anyone who uses one of these relay services.
I have had the opportunity of reading the terms of the licence which the Postmaster-General grants to the companies who operate these exchanges, and it would seem that under that licence, even as it is to-day, the Government have the most complete control, not only over the

programmes which are transmitted, but also over the engineering side of the business, so that there is no opportunity for the relay companies to lay any of their wires in such a way as to interfere with the Post Office telephone or telegraph services. As regards the engineering side, we are told to-day that the closest co-operation exists between the Post Office engineers and the relay companies. I am sure that all Members on this side of the House are very keen to ensure that this new industry which has been pioneered in England during the last few years should not, prematurely at any rate, be absorbed by a Government Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon has explained some of the developments which have taken place, and has made the suggestion that some form of control board might be set up which would provide even further and greater safeguards than exist to-day.
I hope that the Postmaster-General, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell the House that, means which will satisfy his Department will be put into operation for the continued use of these relay services by means of private enterprise, and that they will not be handed over to the Post Office, certainly until their development is much more complete. There is one question that I would like to ask my right hon. Friend. It arises out of a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who said that to-day the British Broadcasting Corporation are in the position of being forced to broadcast any message or statement sent to them by a Government Department. Is it a fact that, in the event, say, of the Minister of Education wishing to have a series of broadcasts on any particular Bill, or of the Minister of Agriculture wishing to extol the virtues of marketing schemes, they could insist at any time upon broadcasting a particular message?

6.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is my privilege to offer to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hulbert) the congratulations of the House upon his performance this afternoon. I am sure that all those who have had the privilege of listening to him will hope that that privilege may shortly be renewed in our further debates in the course of this Session.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion on the matters with which the last two speakers have dealt, because I want to, raise some further points on the, report. I want to comment on that portion of the report which deals with staff matters, because I think there is no doubt in the minds of most people that at the present time the position as regards the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation is highly unsatisfactory. It is to be observed, looking at page 54 of the report, that for some reason or other the Committee were without the assistance, by way of evidence of anybody from the British Broadcasting Corporation other than what one might call the "bosses" of the Corporation—the five Governors, the Director-General, two Controllers, three Regional Directors and one Director of Music. No ordinary members of staff were there to give evidence as regards staff conditions, so that presumably all the material on this subject that one finds in the report is based on the opinions that were put before the committee by these chief officers of the Corporation. In the absence of a staff association, it was perhaps difficult, if not impossible, to pick out any individuals, for fear of what might happen to them afterwards if they gave evidence which was not in accordance with the ideas of the Director-General. In spite, however, of this one-sided view which must have been presented to the committee, a number of criticisms and recommendations appear in the report, and I would draw the attention of the House to one or two of them. In the first place, in paragraph 30 attention is drawn to the extreme importance of its subject-matter. It says:
The staffing arrangements of a public corporation require careful consideration. Besides being justly administered and leading to efficiency of service, they should afford evident grounds for public confidence in the system itself.
It is quite true to say that it is a matter of vital importance that in a corporation of this sort, in which Parliament has some measure of responsibility and control, we should see that the staff arrangements are satisfactory from every point of view. Then, in paragraphs 34 and 35, the committee draw attention to the highly unsatisfactory method of recruitment which obtains at the present time, and they make a recommendation, which seems to me to be very sound, as to how

that should be remedied. I trust that the Postmaster-General will see to it that the remedy is brought about. In paragraphs 37 and 38 the committee deal with the question of staff representation, and point out the alternative methods by which that may be gained; and in paragraph 39 they deal with a matter of fundamental importance—the control by the Corporation over the private lives of the individuals who constitute the staff. The committee say:
It seemed at the same time desirable that the staff concerned with programme work"—
nothing else—
should follow the general tradition of the Civil Service in refraining from any prominent public part in matters of controversy; but apart from this we consider that the staff should be free from any control by the Corporation over their private lives.
If one looks at the reservation of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, one sees the importance of staff representation as regards this feature of the life of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation. He says:
I do not regard the present attitude of the Corporation towards staff representation as at all satisfactory. While it is stated that no inquiry is made as to whether or not an employee belongs to a trade union, it is my clear impression that trade unionism is not encouraged, and that the general tendency is in the direction of autocracy and paternalism.
I think that that last sentence gives the key to the whole of the present difficulties which arise with the staff of the Corporation. There is now an unlimited dictatorial autocracy by the Director-General, and it is leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In order to emphasise its seriousness, I must go in a little detail into the exact conditions of employment in the Corporation. Starting with recruitment, the unsatisfactoriness of the method that has been adopted is recognised in the Committee's report. There has been a completely arbitrary selection of persons, whether to go in at the top or at the bottom of the list of staff. Sometimes most unsuitable people have been chosen in this manner, and that has led to a constant necessity for reconstructing and reorganising departments in the Corporation in order to shift those people who have proved themselves, after choice by the Director-


General, to be unsuitable. Indeed, in some cases quite heavy sums of compensation have been paid to individuals who have been forced to resign because of their incompetence—compensation paid in order that no trouble or publicity might result. Clearly, if you start recruiting your staff in that way, it is bound to give a general atmosphere of unsettlement to the whole organisation.
When we come to the terms upon which the staff are employed, the staff agreement, which is euphemistically referred to as a contract for mutual protection, provides that those under £500 a year are subect to one month's notice, and those over £500 to three months' notice. There is, therefore, a complete absence of security. At any moment the agreement may be terminated without reason stated, that is to say, at the whim of whoever is in charge of the staff administration. In that agreement the employé has to agree to conform not only, as is usual, to the reasonable orders and directions but also to the restrictions that are put upon him either by the Board or by the Director-General. Under paragraph 12 of the Staff Regulations there is this restriction:
The only political activities permitted are those which may be defined as the minimum public duty of a private citizen.
That, presumably, is to cast his vote in the ballot box. It proceeds:
Any activity which may cause controversy or undue publicity is forbidden.
Not political activity, but any activity. I presume it would, therefore, be forbidden to any member of the staff to win a big race, because that might cause publicity. There are also limitations as regards the literary and musical productions of members of the staff. These are most stringent and unnecessary restrictions upon the liberty of the subject, far more stringent than those that apply in the Civil Service, and there is no corresponding advantage, and there may be said to be in the Civil Service, of security of tenure, certainty of promotion and those other factors which make the Civil Service so stable and secure a form of employment. This atmosphere of very rigid restriction naturally gives the fullest advantage to the play of dictatorship within the Corporation, and allows the very maximum of interference with the private lives of the staff.
When one comes to the question of salaries and wages, there are no salaries attached to posts. They are provided by the Niggling of the market between the Corporation and the individuals who are employed. Paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations states that all salaries and wages are confidential and should not be the subject of unofficial discussion. In other words, hide each man's salary from his friend in order to raise the maximum of suspicion between the various members of the staff and to create that atmosphere of secrecy which is so very potent an assistance to the dictatorship above. Thus the salaries and wages are kept an individual matter between employer and employé and, besides leading to the natural friction and discontent to which such a system of unpublished salaries must lead, it also, of course, deprives the employé of any bargaining power which might arise from a mass representation of himself and colleagues.
Under the staff pensions scheme there is administration by five trustees. Two represent the Corporation, two the staff and the fifth is the Director-General, who therefore always holds the casting vote. That is a matter of some importance, because there are various provisions by which a refund out of the staff pensions scheme to the employé depends upon the manner in which they leave their employment or are discharged from it, and therefore it is a convenient way of exercising pressure to get rid of people in a manner most convenient to the dictatorship. The only form of association of the staff is the Corporation club, which has to cater for their sports and their social enjoyment. Members of the staff are pressed to join the club, and until recently the Director-General was the permanent president. He appointed the chairman and the secretary, the latter on the recommendation of the council. Now the board nominates the chairman instead. This carried the dictatorial supervision of the Director-General out of the office into the sports field and into places of social entertainment.
Over and above all this comes the supervision over the private lives of the staff. For instance, any person who is the so-called guilty party in divorce proceedings is at once dismissed, even if there has been no publicity in connection with the divorce. Whatever anyone's indi-


vidual views may be as regards the desirability or undesirability of divorce, I am certain that Members will agree that that is not a matter with which the employer is concerned provided he gets efficient service from the employé. Indeed, it goes a good deal further than divorce because nothing unorthodox is tolerated at all. Even if it does not lead to compulsory resignation, it forms the subject of a black mark against the employé. All signs of independence or of criticism of the Corporation, which by some curious coincidence almost immediately reach the dictatorial ears, are at once dealt with in one way or another. It is plain that the only protection would be some efficient representation of the staff in a staff association, but upon that the dictatorial face has always frowned, and is still frowning quite heavily. The necessity is pointed out in the Ullswater report, and especially in the reservations of the Leader of the Opposition to which I have referred. After that report was issued, action was taken by the Corporation to test, as it was said, the desires of the staff, and the Director-General announced at the Corporation Club—rather a strange place, I should think, at which to announce it—the results obtained from that so-called ballot. They were 9 per cent. for, 11 per cent. for further consideration, and 80 per cent. against, which sounds as if the staff was very much opposed to any staff association.
When one comes to examine the method by which their wishes were ascertained, or, as I would rather put it, by which a negative result was assured, one finds, first of all, that the staff was consulted in sections, on the principle of "divide and conquer," each section in the way the head of the section thought best. For instance, the general office staff, which consists of typists and others, was assembled by the lady superintendent and told that, if they chose, they could vote for an association but, if it came into existence, they would probably lose certain privileges which the Corporation had formerly accorded to them. There was no explanation of what a staff association meant, no explanation of its purpose or what it could achieve, and probably it is not to be wondered at that there was a large majority in that department against it. Similarly the Controller made it quite

clear to the administrative staff, over which he presides, that he was very strongly opposed to any staff association, so that there is no real indication of what the choice would have been had they had put before them concrete proposals and some explanation of the advantages that might be derived from an association.
There is no recognised method of promotion in the Corporation at all. It is done at the selection of the Director-General. Many who have been once promoted are recommitted to what are known as the backwaters when they have shown themselves unable to cope with the jobs to which they have been promoted, but they retain the high salaries attached to those jobs and, in order to get rid of them, it is constantly necessary to reorganise the departments, and those who are not wanted for one reason or another are eventually squeezed into resignation. All these factors show what an extremely good groundwork there is for complete dictatorship by an individual over the lives of the staff, and it is not to be wondered at that highly unsatisfactory results are obtained in the general content, or rather discontent, of the staff. Good relations among the staff, if over-emphasised, are considered to be unhealthy, the reason, of course, being that they tend to create some resistance among the rank-and-file against the orders of the dictatorship.
This is a matter in which Parliament is rightly and intimately concerned. It is essential that some immediate steps should be taken to try to put this situation right, and I suggest that these steps at least ought to be taken forthwith First of all, there should be proper staff representation, organised either through a trade union or through some staff association. Secondly, the method of recruitment laid down in the Ullswater Committee's report should be at once adopted. Thirdly, there should be proper gradations of salaries attached to offices, and proper regulations as regards the promotion of individuals within the organisation. Fourthly, there should be far greater security of tenure of office in order that people may not be in constant danger of losing their office and be overcome by the constant fear of that danger. Lastly, there should be a complete cessation of interference with the private lives of the staff. These protections are much more vital in this case than in the case of


the Civil Service. In the case of the Civil Service there is a responsible Minister in this House to whom questions on matters of individuals being mishandled or mistreated can always be put, but as regards the Corporation there is no protection of that kind and, therefore, they are in the position of having no method of airing their grievances, be they real or imaginary, with the result that the grievances circulate round and round and round in the organisation itself, having no means of escape.
If necessary, the right hon. Gentleman should organise some method of ascertaining the wishes of the directors and the staff. Probably that would be unnecessary if a proper staff association were organised, for those wishes would very soon come to the surface. If it be that the dictatorial character of the Director-General is standing in the way of this, then the Director-General must be changed in the interests of the staff. I want to give one instance of the length to which this autocratic control over private lives is being carried at the present moment. I am going to give the case of Mr. R. S. Lambert, who has been the editor of the "Listener" since October, 1928. Quite recently he thought it necessary in a matter not concerning his work with the British Broadcasting Corporation to issue a writ for slander or libel against another individual. Before doing so he actually mentioned the matter to his superior officer. The superior officer approved of the course that was being taken. A few days later, actually before he had issued the writ, Mr. Lambert received a document from the same superior officer warning him that if he proceeded with his writ his position at the British Broadcasting Corporation would be in serious danger. I have no knowledge of the merits or not of the matters with which the writ is concerned, and it would obviously be quite improper to discuss them if I had the knowledge. I am not concerned with whether Mr. Lambert is wholly right or wholly wrongs but what on earth has this to do with the Corporation? What right have they got to use their economic power over Mr. Lambert to make him discontinue an action against Mr. X? Obviously none.
Quite clearly this is something that cannot be justified by anybody. It is the

sort of behaviour which everybody would condemn in a private business, and when it comes into a public corporation such as this, it is not merely a matter for condemnation. It is a grave scandal, and something of which the House ought to take immediate notice. It is something with which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us to-night he is prepared to deal at once, and to see that this sort of conduct as regards the private lives of the individuals in the British Broadcasting Corporation ceases forthwith, because we have the responsibility —and I hope that the House will direct the right hon. Gentleman to carry out. that responsibility—to see that these people on the staff of the Corporation are protected from these most undesirable actions by the Director-General.

7.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am quite certain that, according to your own desire, Mr. Speaker, you would like the Debate continued on a basis of cut-and-thrust, and theoretically I would like to say to my hon. Friend across the way how much I disagree with him. But that is not the case: I agree with every word he said. I have drunk his glass of Bristol milk with very great enjoyment. I think that he has done a public service in putting before this House and before the world a state of affairs which wants very quickly remedying. We are here to-day to discuss the whole question of broadcasting, and I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying right at the beginning of this Debate that we could ramble right over the report and recommendations of the Commission, and I know that he will not think that we are criticising him or the Government in any way.
In discussing these questions we sometimes get a wrong impression. The development of radio has been a very wonderful thing, but we must not associate the development of radio with the British Broadcasting Corporation. These are two separate things. In another walk of life many people associate the development of flying with the Air Ministry. The two things are really entirely divorced. Here we have a great scientific invention which has advanced in a most amazing way in every country, but here to-night we are discussing the way in which we deal with broadcasting in this country.


We have the special privilege of having had the report of the Committee on Broadcasting, and the first question I want to ask the Postmaster-General—I know that he will not take it in an offensive spirit—is how was it that there was simultaneously given to the world the reply of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the committee on practically every point. After all, the committee was set up to investigate the British Broadcasting Corporation, its officers and its policy, and surely the public and the House of Commons were entitled to see and read the report as early as the British Broadcasting Corporation. Yet—and a very curious thing it was—when the actual report was issued, the reply of the Corporation was issued at the same time. I do not say that there is anything particularly vicious about it, but I hope that if we are to have any other reports on any other subject the same procedure will not be adopted, because it is mischievous.
It is said that there is such a thing as exclusion from the microphone if you criticise the British Broadcasting Corporation. In the early days I used to do a lot of broadcasting, and I was always told that my voice came over very well. I do not know whether my subject matter was liked: I was never quick enough to get home before it came through. But the moment I took up at a public dinner the position of criticising in a chaffing way the British Broadcasting Corporation, from that moment I have never been near a microphone, and I never shall. It does not matter very much, but it is an example of the sort of influence which is exerted. On the question of accounts, this is a public body and I think that we should have accounts as detailed as the expenditure on other national matters. We never have had full accounts of what the British Broadcasting Corporation get through their publications, although I must admit that they have been better this year than before. The British Broadcasting Corporation uses a piano of one make, and one make only. That must have been got by somebody paying for the advertisement. We have never seen where that comes in; is it in revenue or capital account?
We have had a very delightful speech from the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr.

Wakefield) on the question of relay stations, but I would like to get at the bottom of the discontent. I have a great admiration for Sir John Reith and the British Broadcasting Corporation, but where they have failed is on the Sunday programme; and you can get to the bottom of many of these troubles if you keep that point in mind. In the question of relay there are two points. One is whether it should be by private enterprise or done by the State. But the real objection of the listener is that according to the recommendations of the Committee he in future is bound to listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation and to nobody else. That is a very serious point. The sponsored programme will be spoken about by another hon. Member. But the sponsored programme occurs at times when there is no programme coming from the British Broadcasting Corporation at all. In the morning up to 11 o'clock it is quite true that you might have to listen to something interspersed with Bile Beans, but it is a programme, and not a bad programme. If the British Broadcasting Corporation were better nobody would have heard of a foreign programme, but many times on a Sunday night you have to look abroad for an entertainment which is not given by the Corporation. If you are going to give a relay system in one part of the country by the State, I cannot see how you can refuse it in another part of the country by the State. That seems to visualise a very big expenditure of public money which seems to be unjustifiable.
On the political side I do hope the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that he recognises that although we do not want to come and ask questions about programmes and that sort of detailed thing week after week, we do want a guarantee that once a year we can really have a full-dress discussion on broadcasting. Hitherto it has come on under a private Member's Motion; today it has come almost by accident, and by the courtesy of the Opposition. I should like him to give a promise that if there is to be a Minister more intimately connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation than in the past, we shall have at least one day to discuss this very important subject. We Members of Parliament who have to be critics of this great institution, if we are in our place what chance have we of ever hear-


ing anything? We are allowed hundreds of newspapers in our smoking rooms, but we are not allowed a reception set anywhere. In the evenings the Committee rooms are empty. Surely it would not be too dreadful to allow some of us, instead perhaps of playing chess or reading newspapers, occasionally to go up and listen to the products of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

7.14 p.m.

Captain PLUGGE: I want to crave the indulgence of the House on this my maiden speech, and to express my appreciation of the obvious desire of the Government to give full expression of opinion both before the Ullswater Committee and before this House. The number of listeners has increased very rapidly during the past 10 years and of every consideration in broadcasting matters, the listener who pays for his licence should have the first. There are so many listeners to-day that one could say very rightly: one listener, one constituent, and therefore there could not be a better body to represent the views of those listeners than the hon. Gentlemen in this House, the representatives of the people.
I am very pleased to notice in the report that among the recommendations there is one which proposes to make better use of the money collected in licence fees. It is a pity to think that a new industry at the beginning of its existence should be taxed to the extent of more than 10s. in the £. It is only right that licence money, after the usual deductions for cost of collection has been made, should go entirely to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the maintenance and the bettering of the service for which it is intended. When, as in the case of the wireless listeners, one compels, under law, the user of a receiving set to pay this tax, hon. Members may have to consider whether it is not necessary at once to introduce legislation to forbid interference within the radio field. The tax on licences is compulsory and in most countries in Europe, where this is the case, legislation has been introduced to make it illegal to cause any kind of what is called high frequency interference, by lifts, ultra-violet rays, or any other machinery that will interfere with the happy enjoyment of the programmes for which those listeners are paying. I am glad to see that the report in its recom-

mendations has not overlooked this fact. I submit, however. to the House and to hon. Members that the recommendations should be strengthened and that immediate action should be taken. In many instances, although the Post Office give great facility and assistance to listeners who have complained, they are not in the position of enforcing the suppression of many an interference to which I am referring.
In the report I note that the recommendations condemn the English transmission from oversea stations. Here I crave the indulgence of the House in being compelled to talk about a subject of which I have much knowledge. I am the person who initiated the first transmission from an oversea station on behalf of a British firm from the Eiffel Tower in 1925, and I should like very briefly to analyse with hon. Members what objections there can be to the utilisation of existing facilities to push British trade in foreign countries where those facilities are existing and are available to other nationals. To make it quite clear at the beginning, I would emphasise the fact that there is no question of any interference with the British Broadcasting Corporation's transmissions. The jurisdiction of the British Broadcasting Corporation is confined to the 12 English wave lengths allotted to this country. These 12 channels are the English channels, but there are in Europe some 200 channels. There are, therefore, 188 other channels in use, and the utilisation of those channels where it is possible to push and foster British trade and relieve unemployment in this country does not in any way interfere with the programmes transmitted on the 12 English wavelengths. The channels used are individual channels.
Reviewing these oversea transmissions in English, I should like to visualise and analyse with hon. Members the bodies which are concerned with or affected by these transmissions. I suggest that they first concern the listeners, and there are some 30,000,000 of them. Secondly, there are the British advertisers who use this medium to foster trade in Europe. Thirdly, there is the British Broadcasting Corporation who have the monopoly of the building and operating on English soil of broadcasting stations on the 12 English wavelengths,


but not the monopoly of the use of the English language on the ether. And, lastly, there is the Press which gives such an excellent service to manufacturers to advertise British goods in this country. If we consider the views of the listeners we have a ready reply. We find that the company concerned with the English oversea transmissions established an interesting census last year. At random, they arranged for a body of men working under affidavit to call upon over 9,000 houses at random all over the country and to report what they found. To make the figures easy to hon. Gentlemen, I would say that 10,000 houses were visited and what did they find? They found that out of those 10,000 houses, 7,700 had radio sets and 2,300 had not radio sets; in other words they found that 77 per cent. were radio listeners, and 23 per cent. were not. Of the 77 per cent. that were radio listeners 61 per cent. expressed the opinion that they were listeners to English transmissions from overseas stations, and enjoyed them. In addition to this expressed view there exists an association which has received over a quarter of a million letters from listeners appreciating those transmissions. We have therefore the expression of the view of the listeners; they are delighted and object to anything being taken away from them.
I now come to the advertisers. The British advertisers who use this medium spend money in so doing, and we must, therefore, conclude that since they freely spent the money they are satisfied with the results they obtain. I will quote from a speech made by one of those advertisers during the course of a meeting of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. He said:
If foreign Governments decided of their own accord to prohibit British advertising whilst allowing that of other countries, we (the British advertisers) should all protest in the most energetic manner and demand that the National Government take immediate steps to remove such an injustice. That our own Government should initiate such action against its awn nationals is as inexplicable to foreign Governments as it is to ourselves.
I come to the third body, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Does the British Broadcasting Corporation oppose these transmissions? It has, as I have said, the full control of 12 wave lengths. It can broadcast on these channels the programmes which it desires and for the

length of time it desires but on those 12 wave lengths only. Some of the channels otherwise used by foreign artists advertising foreign products are now used instead to advertise British goods all over Europe. These channels are tuned in by choice by a great number of listeners, and as a result these listeners pay their 10s. licence in the same way to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I, therefore, leave it to hon. Members to decide. They have to consider whether there is a reason to object. They might consider that it would be a reasonable thing for the British Broadcasting Corporation to say: "The listeners pay for our livelihood. We are the last body who would like to take something away from them which they are getting for nothing and which they enjoy. We want to give what we can and to see that they get as much as they can for their 10s."
The British Broadcasting Corporation gives two alternatives on their 12 channels and there are weekly over 100 hours provided from English transmissions from overseas stations. This service is to-day the third alternative given to the listener to which he looks forward on paying his 10s. licence. The English transmissions from oversea stations form actually an integral part of the British broadcasting service today. One can compare a broadcasting service to a dish which is sometimes served and is called "hors d'oeuvres varies". It is not so much the individual items which count but it is their number and variety. Although the quality of a particular broadcasting programme is dependent upon the quality of music or particular entertainment, the quality of a broadcasting service is expressed by the number of alternatives provided. To compare one or two towns in the world, London with its 10,000,000 inhabitants has two alternatives by the British Broadcasting Corporation and one from the English oversea transmissions, three alternatives. Paris with half the number of inhabitants has eight alternatives, Brussels four alternatives and New York has 22 alternatives, programmes at nearly every time of the day or night.
I now come to the honourable fourth body, the Press. The Press have given every possible help and assistance to this new industry of radio. From the


very beginning they have published radio programmes both from the stations in England and from overseas stations. They have appointed radio editors, radio correspondents, set aside radio columns and done everything to help and assist this new industry. They probably also bear in mind—one listener, one reader. It is therefore only natural that they should assist the industry in every way. Yet I submit to the House that the Press could very reasonably object to this method of advertising British goods because they might say that it is taking away from their revenue. Yet Press circulation is inside England, whereas radio advertising covers some 20 European countries as well. It is not certain that the revenue which is expended upon radio advertising is taken away from the Press. It might be taken away from poster advertising or from Neon signs or from mail orders through the post. But let us assume for a moment that it is taken away entirely from Press appropriations. Looking into the money expended annually in this country upon advertising we find that approximately £60,000,000 are expended on Press advertinsing, yet only about £200,000 are spent on radio advertising. Therefore if it is entirely taken away from the appropriation of Press advertising, it is to the extent of one-third of 1 per cent.
It is only natural for the Press to say, "Yes, but the situation may change; radio advertising may expand.' In reply to this we have an example at our disposal that of a country, the United States, which has indulged in radio advertising for the last 13 years. We can, therefore, look at what has happened over there. In the United States of America we find that all the 200 broadcasting wave lengths distributed throughout Europe are available to the United States of America alone. We have only 12. Moreover, the geographical expanse of their country permits them to use those wave lengths in some cases as much as three times over because stations are so for apart. We, therefore, find the United States with some 600 broadcasting stations instead of the 12 we have in this country. Wave lengths are like colonies. We have secured 12 colonies and the United States have secured 200 colonies.
The ether world is a new world. We have to consider what other countries are doing and to reflect before we discriminate against the activities of our nationals using those facilities which are available to them and ethers in other countries. We now see what is happening and has happened in the United States. During these.13 years they have used all their stations for advertising purposes. They have now 600, and we find, in looking into the appropriations of radio advertising, that it is only 11 per cent. of the appropriation of the American Press. I submit that even if the whole of the 12 stations of the British Broadcasting Corporation were used entirely for advertising we could not reach in this country for radio advertising more than 2 or 3 per cent of the Press appropriation in this country. Therefore it is for hon. Members to decide whether or not they think that the present situation is unfair and that the Press should not be content, as they actually are, with their 99.6 per cent. of the appropriation.
I might answer a point which may occur to hon. Members, and that point is why cannot radio advertising expand to any greater extent? The answer is that a broadcasting station is like a newspaper with only one sheet. An ordinary newspaper may extend its size. It can jump from four pages to eight pages, from eight pages to 12, or from 12 to 32, should it receive more advertising. A broadcasting station cannot expand—it is like a newspaper on one sheet, which can only print on one side—half of the 24 hours people are asleep.
I have found myself personally in the unfortunate position of a British subject in a foreign country negotiating on behalf of British interests and finding that the nationals of other countries are very fully supported by their Ministers and Ambassadors and their Government, and can secure privileges and concessions, whereas the British subject finds that his own Government and his own diplomatic service, far from helping him secure the concession, use their endeavours to minimise the value of his efforts. I do not know what hon. Members may think of that position, yet such is the international position in broadcasting to-day. I submit that the Government and their repre-


sentatives abroad should give every facility and every assistance to any British subject in his endeavour to utilise facilities available to advertisers in this manner in any part of the world.
Broadcasting covers every field of life. Indeed broadcasting is life itself. It comes under the jurisdiction of every Government Department, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Education and the Air Ministry, and therefore it is most proper, as suggested in the report, that there should be a Minister of Broadcasting responsible to this House at all times. I am glad that that subject has been dealt with in the report, and I would ask hon. Members that when they consider the report they may give their support to this important Measure so that we may ourselves be at all times responsible for the policy of so important a field, a field which concerns the lives and happiness of 30,000,000 of our constituents. I thank the House for their indulgence during this my maiden speech.

7.33 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I congratulate the hon. Member on a very good presentation of his case. Although I cannot say that I agree with much of it, that does not interfere with the fact that it was very well delivered. He gave a most persuasive presentation of the case for the station abroad with which he is particularly identified, and which he has created. It is a very great thing to have created Radio-Luxemburg successfully, and it was interesting to be told all about it in the very admirable way that the hon. Member described it. I should like to say how very heartily I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) when he congratulated one of my hon. Friends on having raised the matter of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although I do go to Broadcasting House for a good many different purposes I have never heard anything about that matter inside the building. I have noticed that one person has succeeded another rather rapidly, but I have never asked anybody why the change has taken place, and I doubt whether I should have received any answer had I done so. What I am going to say arises purely out of my interest in the welfare of a great and powerful Corporation.
I cannot imagine why it is that the British Broadcasting Corporation should

take a stricter line in regard to the control of their staff than the Civil Service takes. It is, of course, a matter of great importance for the country that there should be certain control of our Civil Service, and I could not take up the line that nothing that a civil servant does outside his office concerns the Civil Service. The Civil Service must draw the line somewhere. I was a civil servant for three years and I know that they drew the line below me. I cannot agree with the proposition that a big employing corporation has no interest in what its people do outside, but why it should be that the British Broadcasting Corporation are more strict and searching than the Civil Service, I cannot understand. I cannot see why there should not be set up in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation something like the organisation which has worked so well in the Civil Service—the Whitley Council. I am chairman of the small Whitley Council in the Forestry Commission, and I know that the Whitley Council is a very good safety valve for the Commissioners, the heads of Departments and the staff. It enables one to obtain extraordinarily useful knowledge of what other people on the staff think about various matters which they have a constitutional right to bring up. I have never known anything to happen on the Whitley Council which was not useful to everybody, and I cannot see why something of the sort should not be set up in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Neither do I see why they should not have something in the nature of a salaries list. Everybody inside must know what the salaries are. Surely it would be a good thing if the salaries could be set down, instead of being left to rumour and the handing on of information from one to another. We have been told about the heads of the athletic organisations which exist in connection with the Corporation being appointed from above. That gives one a sort of idea of the unnecessary spirit of autocracy which must prevail there. I know that when I was a civil servant we had our departmental athletic and other organisations. There were also various organisations representing the whole Civil Service. The idea that the heads of these organisations should be appointed from the heads of the Departments instead of being freely elected and, if necessary, deposed by the members of the associations, would have


been considered perfectly appalling in the Civil Service. Surely, there ought to be complete freedom in matters of that kind. I hope that the heads of the British Broadcasting Corporation will not consider that we are going outside our proper functions in taking an interest in these matters.
I should like to say a few words about the difficult question of relays. Relay companies are very powerful. They have a great power of lobbying in this House. I say that in no offensive sense. They do, however, vote a very considerable sum of money for the purpose of influencing our votes. This is a very difficult and big problem for the Government to decide. They ought to decide one way or the other, and fairly soon, either that these services ought to be taken over, before they become too big, or else that we should give them the ten years charter which has been asked for. In the latter event we must be certain that during the intervening period so powerful a vested interest is not built up as to make it impossible for the State to take it over later. We have in mind the very large sum that had to be paid to the National Telephone Company when it was taken over. If that concern had been taken over earlier the sum paid would have been very much smaller. At the present time we have a comparatively small relay system and the advisability of dealing with it one way or the other is very material.
I cannot help thinking, although we had such an interesting statement from the hon. Member opposite about the advantages of private broadcasting, that there is a great deal to be said for our alternative system of a limited number of wave lengths instead of the 600 competing wave lengths in the United States. How on earth people can select the wave length that is wanted out of so many competing services, puzzles me. There is a great deal to be said for our system of broadcasting in this country as a quasi-public service. We have adopted that system and that fact ought to have very considerable influence with us. The broadcasting which provides through the relay system an alternative to the system of the British Broadcasting Corporation should be on the same platform, of the same nature and under the same type of public control as the British Broadcasting Corporation itself, closely, co-operating

with our primary national service, the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The people who object to the present Sunday service of the British Broadcasting Corporation have a great deal to say for themselves. If the relay systems were taken over by some Government Department it is possible that they might continue something on the same lines but with a lighter alternative programme, perhaps occupying more time than is taken by the British Broadcasting Sunday services. I do not want to go into any controversial matter, but the main point I feel is that I object to giving private persons an interest through the relay system in commercial advertising. We have a public interest in the way which the British Broadcasting Corporation is run. The Government appoints the directors, and we know perfectly well that if anybody went to the offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation and offered a large sum of money to be given to the board so that he might put over a talk, he would be kicked out. We have no sort of security with regard to the services made use of by the relay stations. I know that the relay stations may not initiate anything, but obviously it is in the interests of commercial concerns to induce some or all of the relay companies to select those programmes coming from abroad which contain the advertisements which those particular companies want to have put over in this country.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: The right hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension, because in the licence issued by His Majesty's Postmaster-General it is expressly stated that the relay services are not permitted to receive any consideration, either direct or indirect, for putting over any advertisement from abroad.

Sir F. ACLAND: It is one thing to say that a private company is not permitted to receive anything, but it is a different thing to say that it does not receive anything. It would be impossible to detect if it did receive anything. The people in control of these companies might be capable of receiving money for so arranging their relays as to take in particular advertising services from abroad which would contain advertisements in which particular concerns were interested. I am not imputing any corruption, but that is the difference between the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is under direct public control, and a service run


by private companies who, although they have to accept a definite charter or licence from the Post Office, are under no sort of control of the same type that we apply to the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is their rival.

Mr. DUNCAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a licence and the conditions, which are very stringent?

Sir F. ACLAND: Yes, but that is immaterial. My point is that although the terms of the licence are stringent there can be no such control over private companies to see that they comply with the terms of the licence, and nobody can detect the fact that they are not doing so, as would be the case in the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is my point. In paragraph 53 of the report it is proposed that there should be a responsible Cabinet Minister, to whom the House can look if there is any interference with programmes or with talks. That is a very important matter, and I hope it will be taken up by the Government at once. It may be right, sometimes it may be inevitable, that the Government should express its views on some programme or some talk, or about some speaker, but it is rather undesirable. What is most undesirable is that when there has been any interference by the Government we should not know where the interference comes from. One has heard of some Department having made representations, but that does not necessarily convey that any Minister has been consulted or is responsible. In future, if this recommendation is adopted, there will be somebody who will be able to be questioned in the House if any question arises of interference with programmes, and to that extent we shall be better off and know where we are.
My last point is that if in the long run the British Broadcasting Corporation is to have the smallest influence in stimulating interest, intelligence and appreciation, which we all desire, they must have regard not only to the quantity of their listeners but to their quality. The great majority of the people who come home tired in the evening do not want to use their brains or their musical taste and discrimination. They look for light music, and it is right that they should be provided for; but the real hold which the British Broadcasting Corporation ought to get in the affections

and estimations of the people depends on their providing for the minority who are interested in books, and in discussions, and in some forms of music. There has lately been a, suggestion that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a little inclined in the best hours of the evening, that is from seven to nine o'clock, not to pay so much attention to the educational side as they used to do. In my opinion that is undesirable. You want to get people interested as listeners in the British Broadcasting Corporation because the Corporation can be relied upon to present a consideration of serious subjects in a serious way in a series of talks, which have a definite place in their programme. That is not referred to in the report, but I hope I shall be allowed to mention the matter.

7.50 p.m.

Major ASTOR: As a member of the 1923 Sykes Committee on Broadcasting, and also a member of the Ullswater Committee, I should like to say a few words on some of the points in our report which are not controversial, and give my reasons for supporting the recommendations that I did support. Our main task was to recommend any alterations or improvements which we thought would better enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to carry out their function of giving the best possible service, the greatest possible measure of enjoyment and interest and benefit, to the greatest number of people. The first consideration, of course, is the listener. There is a very wide variety of listeners, a variety in taste and outlook and feelings. If the British Broadcasting authority is to achieve any measure of success surely it is of the first importance that it should be sure of a regular revenue, an income, that its policy and management should be impartial and independent of any sectional or commercial interests. The experience of the past few years and the evidence put before us certainly showed conclusively that the present constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation is well suited to its purpose. We have referred respectfully in our report to the wisdom and foresight of our predecessors in the Crawford Committee, and it is fair to say that other countries regard our broadcasting system as a model.
We took the view that subject to all reasonable safeguards and subject to the ultimate control of Parliament, the broad-


casting authorities should be given a fair measure of autonomy. Their first task is to keep in touch with the listeners through the medium of letters, advisory councils, and criticisms in the newspapers and in the House of Commons, and thus to maintain a fair balance and the highest possible standard in their programmes. Of course we examined carefully the criticisms which were brought before us. In some cases the criticisms came from both Hanks, and cancelled each other out. In others they were obviously made under a misapprehension. In other cases we were unable to get any evidence to substantiate or support the criticisms made. But, on the whole, and considering all the difficulties which confronted them I feel that the tribute expressed in our report, and which has been expressed elsewhere, to the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation is fully deserved. Like all human institutions they are not infallible but, at any rate, they show a readiness to accept suggestions and many which we have made have already been put into operation.
With only comparatively minor alterations we recommend a renewal of the present charter, except that in the matter of the licence fees we recommend that a greater proportion should go to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Owing to the rapidity with which their plant depreciates, the research work they have to carry out and the development of the Empire broadcasting services it was proved to us that their present income is not adequate to the maintenance of their programmes. It is only fair as a first charge, of course, that the Post Office should be repaid for expenses in connection with the collection of the licence fees and the detection and removal of interferences. In the case of a financial crisis which the country has been going through it is only fair that the British Broadcasting Corporation should pay their share towards the national recovery at the expense of having to curtail their own activities. In normal times I question whether the State has any moral right by an indirect form of taxation to any share in the licence fees, at any rate, until all reasonable needs of the British Broadcasting Corporation have been fully met. In the charter, the renewal of which we recommend, the constitution of the British

Broadcasting Corporation is based on a revenue derived from licence fees and on a monopoly, subject to various safeguards and the control of Parliament.
What are the alternatives to this systems? In some countries the Government controls broadcasting; it is entirely in their hands. In other countries it is based on sponsored programmes and advertisements. In this country we find a very general and strong feeling against the broadcasting of advertisements, and one finds a similar feeling in countries which are suffering from broadcast advertisements. To allow the principle of revenue derived from advertisements would, I submit, be bringing in a consideration which we a re most anxious to avoid. It has been urged that in the interest of trade the broadcast of advertisements should be allowed. I recognise, we all recognise, the great pulling power that the broadcast of advertisement does have, but the public before now have shown that they do not regard that as the only consideration. They insist on a certain limitation and have rejected forms of advertising which have offended the ordinary individual's eyes or ears. There is, of course, an agreement between countries now that no country should broadcast, in the language of another, matter which is not acceptable to that country and contrary to its wishes. We know that two foreign stations ignore this agreement in the case of advertisements. Anyone can buy time from these stations and use it within wide limits. For instance, is there any check on undesirable or misleading advertisements through these stations?
It is true that a man with a receiving set gets both the advertisements and the programmes which go with them, but no one can regard that as an argument for opening the door wider for relay exchanges. These exchanges have been increasing to a great extent recently. They enable people to listen-in cheaply and they also cut out Interference. The question now at issue is whether these relay exchanges should remain in private hands or be taken over by the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation respectively. I think this is an important matter. Perhaps on the technical side we can agree that the Post Office has the experience and the facilities to maintain existing lines, to lay new ones and to avoid duplication. I think that


probably it is also true to say that the Post Office would be more likely than a private company to extend the system into a wider field in the country districts and beyond the localities of the dense population.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: Would the hon. and gallant Member explain how duplication would be avoided if the Post Office did it instead of the wireless relay exchanges?

Major ASTOR: The Post Office are already responsible for a whole network of wires and would, therefore, be in a better position to avoid the duplication which might easily take place if other authorities put up wires.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: Separate wires must be used in order to put the relay over, and therefore duplication occurs.

Major ASTOR: I do not wish to argue on a technical point. I merely suggest that the Post Office are in the nature of things best qualified to carry out the technical operations in connection with these exchanges. The point with which I wish to deal is whether the programmes should be controlled by the private companies or by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have been forced to the conclusion that, having set up the British Broadcasting Corporation, with a system of checks, safeguards and control, it would be illogical and inconsistent to set up a rival authority which might have a different policy for broadcasting, an authority which might ignore and cut across the very principles and considerations upon which the present constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation is based.
May I now consider some of the arguments is that it would tend to strengthen the Corporation in the position of dictators; but I regard the checks and safeguards over them as adequate. Behind them is the force of public opinion and criticism in the Press and in this House. It is also said that it is unfair that the fortunate owner of a receiving set should be able to pick up foreign stations, whereas the man who relies on relay exchanges may not be able to get foreign stations. One of the criticisms against the British Broadcasting Corporation is that their programmes are too highbrow and that even their light music is above

popular taste, particularly on Sundays. They are trying to brighten their programmes and there is no reason why they should not go further. I hope they will. They are urged in many quarters to give more and better light music. One of the difficulties, I understand, is that musical experts hold widely different views as to what is and what is not good light music. In our report we recommend that if these relay exchanges should be handed over to the British Broadcasting Corporation, it should be incumbent upon them to give full consideration to any demand on the part of the subscribers for selections from foreign stations. They do already give selections from foreign stations, and again there is no reason why they should not go further in this direction.
These appear to me to be minor difficulties and objections. If we were starting afresh with a clean slate now, I firmly believe that those who agreed with the principles upon which the present British Broadcasting Corporation is based would also agree that it is only logical that the Corporation should be responsible for the policy of the relay exchanges. I firmly believe that the arguments in favour of making them responsible for those programmes will become stronger, and I believe that the sooner the exchanges are handed over the better for everyone concerned.
There is only one other point on which I would like to say a word or two. Many hon. Members no doubt saw a letter in the Press from the Incorporated Society of Musicians. I am sure we all have full respect for their views, but they urged one view which I would like to contest. They said that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be debarred from competing with and embarrassing what they called non-subsidised orchestras by allowing their own British Broadcasting Corporation orchestra to play in public. From the nature of things the British Broadcasting Corporation have been able to get together an extremely fine orchestra, their first orchestra being one of the best in Europe, I understand. It is a national asset. They do provide well-paid and regular work for a large number of musicians. They are also continually broadcasting other orchestras and performers, but they say, I have no doubt with absolute truth, that it is most


important that a good orchestra should sometimes play in public and that if it is always playing in padded rooms it loses something. It is important that it should come under the influence of a live audience. I believe, too, that the public like hearing them. Many people believe that the only place to hear a good concert is in the concert hall. I think that on the whole the evidence is that broadcasting has been a benefit to the musical profession, and that, thanks to broadcasting and gramophones, interest in music has been increased and the number of concert goers greatly increased. I am sure that if anyone wished to go to the opera or any good concert, he would be wise to apply for seats in good time. Far from embarrassing other orchestras, I believe that considerate competition of the British Broadcasting Corporation orchestra is all to the good and to the benefit of music, musicians and music lovers. I hope it will be continued.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. PARKER: I think that on all sides of the House there has been great disquiet at the dictatorial position of the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think that this particular problem raises a wider question—that of the relationship between the various public corporations which have been growing up in recent years and this House. I very much welcome the suggestion put forward in the report of the Ullswater Committee that there should be a special Minister who would act as a liaison officer between the Corporation and this House. There is, however, another matter which requires investigation, and it is the question of the personnel of the Board of Governors. I think there is fairly general dissatisfaction with the type of person appointed as governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation. At the present time the male members are extraordinarily old. The oldest, who was appointed only last year, is 71 and the youngest is 60. There are two lady members on the board, and unfortunately my ungallant attempts to discover their ages have not been successful, but I fear they would not reduce the average age to any great extent.
If broadcasting, which is definitely a creation. of the present century, is to be

a live thing and if it is to represent the wishes of the people of the country, there should be as governors people who are young and who represent the younger generation, and not people having an average age of over 60 years. May I further point out that two of the chairmen of the Board of Governors actually died of old age during the past year? I think it is unfortunate that this practice of appointing very old people as governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation should continue. Moreover, most of the governors appear to be drawn from a particular section of the community, and are a particular type of person. They come especially from among retired second-rate politicians. I do not think that when these people retire from this House or cease to be active in the other place they should be placed on bodies of this sort. We need people who are still in full vigour and are interested in the general affairs of the country, and not people who are out of touch.
What is the result of this policy? It is that when there are governors who cannot pay adequate attention to the affairs of the Corporation, the officials of the Corporation get completely out of hand. That is what has happened, and that is why there is a Director-General who is in this peculiarly dictatorial position. Because there is no adequate link between the Corporation and this House, and because the Governors are too old to be able to give adequate attention to the affairs of the Corporation, the Director-General has been able to get into that peculiar position. If we are to prevent that sort of thing continuing or arising in future, it is necessary to see that a better type of person, younger and more vigorous, is appointed as governor, and that there is an adequate link between this House and the Corporation, in order that the general affairs of the Corporation may be under continuous supervision.
I would like now to refer to the question of staff organisation. I understand that there are nearly 2,500 persons employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. They represent an enormous variety of occupations. It is asserted by the Corporation that they represent so many different occupations that they could not possibly be organised into any proper staff association or trade union organisation.


I do not agree with that view. I would like to describe the efforts that have been made by one or two trade unions to extend their membership within the Corporation, and to show what reception they have had. It so happens that when there is a broadcast from this country to the Empire, as on Christmas Day when the King makes a speech, the wiring is done by the Post Office, but that when there is a broadcast only within this country, the wiring is done by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The electricians who do the wiring for a broadcast outside this country are employed by the Post Office and belong to the Post Office electricians' union, but the electricians employed by the Corporation do not belong to a trade union. There is no actual rule of the Corporation that they should not, but it so happens that when anyone applies for a job they are asked whether they belong to a trade union or not, and it also so happens that no person who belongs to the trade union ever gets a job as an electrician under the Corporation.
Attempts have also been made in regard to people like packers, sorters, porters and so on engaged at the Corporation in sending out publications and similar work, to raise the question of organisation but the Corporation have frowned on any attempt to organise these workers or to create any machinery to represent them in negotiating with the Corporation on their conditions of employment. The Corporation take the line that any member of the staff can appeal to the Director-General, but it is absurd to imagine that any one of 2,500 employés can appeal to a person occupying such an important position as that of the Director-General of the Corporation. If there is to be proper protection of the rights of the people working for the Corporation, there must be some proper organisation to look after them and some negotiating machinery to deal with questions of conditions, wages and so forth.
What I suggest is, not that there should be one complete staff organisation including everybody—which I do not think would work well, having regard to the variety of occupations involved—but an organisation on the lines of a newspaper chapel. I suggest that the journalists in the newsroom could belong to the journalists' organisation, the electricians to the electricians organisation, the

musicians to the musicians' organisation and so on, and that there should be a federal organisation covering all of them, and representing them all together in such a way as to reconcile their claims and negotiate directly with the Corporation on matters of common interest to all. That sort of organisation works well in the case of all the big newspapers and a similar organisation would, I believe, work very well inside the British Broadcasting Corporation. It would get over the difficulty caused by the small numbers of people following particular occupations in the Corporation and it would be better than a purely staff organisation which might not allow of sectional interests being properly represented.
In the Ullswater Committee's report it is suggested that, in regard to the more important posts, there should be a new system by which people who apply for posts should be interviewed and examined. I suggest that something more is required. There should be a definite system of recruitment for the whole of the clerical and administrative staffs even the minor posts; there should be proper channels by which the humblest clerk and typists could enter the service and there should be no avenue in regard to which questions of jobbery of any kind could arise.
Then there is the question of political activities. I agree that people who are responsible for programmes should not take part in political activities outside their office hours but I think that the Government in drawing up the new charter should lay down clearly what posts are to be non-political, in the sense that the holders are not to take any active part in politics. There should only be a limited number of posts to which that condition would apply. The people holding the major organisation A1 posts and those responsible for the drawing up of programmes might, I think, be restricted in that respect leaving everybody else completely free.

Mr. McGOVERN: Why should anybody be restricted?

Mr. PARKER: Obviously, there would be difficulty if a person who was a candidate in an election was responsible for the issuing of the news or anything of that kind and the general practice in a considerable number of organisations


to-day is to apply certain restrictions of that kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But if a man is prohibited from being a candidate at an election that does not mean that he cannot take any part in politics. A man may be allowed to take an interest in politics and may yet be refused the right to act as a candidate. For instance, the miners have said that certain officials of their union shall not be candidates at elections but that does not bar them from taking any part in politics.

Mr. PARKER: I quite agree, and with regard to the greater number of positions that would certainly apply. But I think that, with regard to those actually responsible for running the programme, there would b a certain amount of difficulty. It would be difficult to allow people responsible for the organisation of programmes to play a very active part in politics. Generally speaking, I think the restriction should only apply where there is a clear case for such restriction. There should be no general application of it, as there is at present, denying the right of people to take part in politics. For example, one of the employees of the Corporation was a Liberal candidate in Chester and he received definite instructions that he must either give up his candidature or lose his job. His job was that of education officer organising talks and one might make out some sort of case for restriction in that instance if he were a candidate in the area where he was responsible for the organisation of these educational programmes. But I do not see that there is any justification for refusing such a man the right to be a candidate outside his own area.
It is very necessary that a clear line should be laid down with regard to this question of political activities and candidatures in reference not only to the British Broadcasting Corporation but other public corporations as well. A very serious position is arising in that respect in this country. We have larger and larger combines in private enterprise; great public corporations are growing up and we find an increasing tendency to restrict the right of the people employed by those bodies to take an active part in politics. That means that in these large combines only the directors can take any part in politics or stand as

candidates for Parliament. If public corporations like this are also to ban their employés from taking part in politics, we shall reach a stage at which the people who can take a part in politics and in the government of the country, will be drawn from a narrow section of the population. It will mean, eventually, that only the representatives of particular interests will be able to enter this House, and that only people who actually represent trade unions or particular big businesses will have the opportunity of standing for Parliament. That would be very undesirable.
It is time that this House paid attention to this question in relation to various public corporations, and laid down very clear rules as to the posts in connection with which there should be a restriction of this kind and those whose holders should be free. We should require very definite justification before allowing any post to be subject to this kind of restriction. Two bodies may be held up as examples in this respect. The railway companies allow great freedom to their employés, even those occupying high positions, to take part in politics and the same is true of the London Passenger Transport Board. These examples might be copied widely in the country but this House ought to pay particular attention to seeing that in all these public corporations no more restrictions than are necessary should be applied in the matter of Parliamentary candidatures or other political activities. With regard to the question of relay exchanges, I do not see why the large profits made in town areas should not be used to extend the services to more remote areas. I do not feel that the question of large public expenditure arises at all, because the profits which would accrue to the British Broadcasting Corporation if it owned them could be set aside for the extension of the services. This could go on gradually until the need was fully met.
Then again there is serious disquiet about the question of adult education. Yesterday one of the most important advisory committees of the British Broadcasting Corporation reached a complete deadlock on the question. There has grown up through the Corporation a very useful adult education system, and it is estimated that over 40,000 people listen in regularly, in groups, to educational talks given over the wireless. I think it would be most unfor-


tunate if such a system as that were destroyed, and there is evidence to show that the tendency at the present time is to alter the times of these talks, to prevent their being regular, and to break up the whole system. I think that is very disastrous and unfortunate, and I do not think the British Broadcasting Corporation ought to act in that way. The Universities and other bodies responsible for adult education are very disquieted about the tendency in that direction. It is worth pointing out, I think, that in this country the time actually given for talks of that kind is less than in any other country in Europe, except Italy, where the Government presumably do not want to educate the people.
With regard to the question of the censorship by Government Departments of programmes by the British Broadcasting Corporation, I understand that in certain cases it may be desirable that some sort of censorship should exist, especially perhaps on foreign affairs, where I think the Foreign Office may quite rightly intervene in talks on foreign policy if they think they might cause international complications. Last summer, however, it was proposed that there should be a series of talks in the autumn rather wider than usual, and that both Fascist and Communist speakers should be worked into a programme and allowed to give their views. Mr. Harry Pollitt and Sir Oswald Mosley were selected as the representatives of their points of view, and there were other speakers representing the more orthodox parties. The Foreign Office were consulted, and they had no objection. Later in the autumn, however, they suddenly raised objections to the programme, after it had been published and after the whole thing had been arranged. They stated that it was possible that Sir Oswald Mosley might be represented as an Italian propagandist in this country and that Mr. Harry Pollitt might be represented as a Russian propagandist.
The British Broadcasting Corporation with great care raised the matter with the two speakers in question as soon as possible and got guarantees from them that foreign policy would not be introduced into their talks. Nevertheless, the Foreign Office still objected. The talks were postponed in the autumn on the

ground that the General Election was coming on, and in the spring the Corporation again raised the question whether they could not have these talks. The Foreign Office again intervened and blocked the talks altogether, and that is the present position. I do not think the Foreign Office have any right to block talks which are not on foreign policy. I think certain rules should be laid down, if we are to have this kind of censorship by Government Departments, and that in a case of that kind it should be possible for the British Broadcasting Corporation to appeal to the Minister responsible to Parliament for a decision when disagreement arises.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. RICHARD LAW: The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate said that the question of the taking over by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the broadcast relay services had nothing at all to do with the question of the principle of nationalisation, but it seems to me that it has everything to with it, and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), who has just spoken, really was speaking from a definitely Socialist point of view. He said he would like to see the broadcast relays taken over by the State and the money made by the more profitable districts used to develop the less profitable districts. That may or may not be a desirable point of view, but it is certainly a Socialist point of view. And not only so; it is a most dangerous form of Socialism, because it involves the nationalisation not merely of property and machinery, but of ideas, of entertainment, and so on.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) has left the House, because there are one or two comments which I should like to make upon his speech. I am sure the whole House was most interested in that speech and most impressed by the great care which he, as a member of the Ullswater Committee, had evidently devoted to the subject of broadcasting. The hon. and gallant Member for Dover, at an early stage in his speech, said that he and the committee had regarded this problem of broadcasting mainly from the point of view of the listener and of the listener's enjoyment. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member and the Committee, it seems to me that neither he nor the committee has really done any-


thing of the sort. The hon. and gallant Member went on to critcise the broadcast relay services, and he based his criticism, not upon the fact that the listener did not want or did not enjoy these services and in his way benefit from them, but upon the fact that in some way they interfered with the efficiency of this enormous and powerful bureaucracy, the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I think the same thing is apparent in the whole of the Ullswater Report. I have read the report, and although I could not absolutely vouch for it, I believe that in the whole of the report the word "entertainment" does not occur at all. If hon. Members turn to that part of the report which deals with musical programmes, for example, they will see on page 30 that the committee lays down four objectives which those who are responsible for compiling musical programmes should have in mind. I think they are the cultivation and encouragement of music in this country, the production of the best kind of music, the improvement of taste, and the encouragement of musicians in times of depression. There is no objective there of entertainment which will please the listener, even if the listener's tastes are not as high as the British Broadcasting Corporation would like them to be. And that same attitude colours the whole of the report, especially in so far as it relates to the broadcasting relay services. On page 40 of the report the committee states:
We have had evidence from many quarters that the proprietors of relay exchanges are in a position materially to damage the Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of material from foreign sources, selecting some parts of the Corporation's programme and omitting others, and upsetting the balance upon which those programmes are constructed.
It seems to me that those phrases are either completely meaningless—and that is the interpretation which I should put upon them—or else they are sinister in their intent. Are we to understand from those sentences that the only way in which the Corporation can achieve a balanced and good programme is to have everybody in the country listening to the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme, and nothing else, all the time? Obviously that is absurd. Are we to understand that if a listener who does not want to listen to a lecture on the foundations of music, switches on to a

dance band in Berlin, or switches off. altogether and goes to a boxing match, or to a cinema, or to a Debate in this House, or to whatever the kind of entertainment may be that catches his fancy, he is damaging the balance of the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes? That is obvious nonsense.
There is another interpretation that one may put upon it; that is, that the Corporation has a duty to establish a kind of cultural dictatorship over the people of this country through broadcasting. Obviously, the Corporation cannot touch the well-to-do listener who has his own wireless receiver and can turn on to any foreign station he likes. It can deal only with the few hundreds of thousands who are so poor that they cannot afford wireless sets, or who live in areas in which reception for one reason or another is difficult. I am sure, that that cannot be the intention of the Committee in making that reference. I am sure that the House would resist it and would never consent to such a transaction being carried through.
Parliament some 10 years ago, it is true, set up the Corporation and gave it a monopoly of the broadcasting of matter in this country, but it is certain that Parliament had no intention of giving it the monopoly of reception in this country. I do not think that the House of Commons or the Government would be justified in giving the Corporation such a monopoly now. It is not a question of whether the programmes are good or bad, but it is undesirable that any one body should have the power, not only to say what should be broadcast in this country, but to say what should be listened to, not by the country as a whole, but merely by the poor and less fortunate listeners. In my attitude towards this question of the broadcast relay services, I have no interest either direct or indirect, in them, and it would not matter to me twopence if they were swept away. But in my constituency, which contains a considerable working-class population, the programmes that are relayed through these services are very important. The people who are the clients of the broadcast relay companies are not people, whose lives are in general very exciting or bright. They are not people who have money to spend on any kind of entertainment which takes their fancy. They have to put up with comparatively simple pleasures, and I


suggest that we in this House ought to be very careful about badgering these poor people and putting them at the mercy of a vast and very high-minded, but rather soupy bureaucracy like the British Broadcasting Corporation.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I rise to intervene in this Debate in order to make a complaint about the attitude of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Independent Labour party. That party is able to state in the British House of Commons the point of view of a section of the people of this country, but at the General Election, despite the fact that we had 18 candidates in the field, we were denied the opportunity of broadcasting along with other parties. We were not unreasonable. We did not expect to have the same time as the other parties, but in view of the number of candidates that we had in the field, and of the history of our party, we made a legitimate claim. The Director-General, in reply to correspondence, said that he would consider the matter when he found how many candidates we were putting in the field. We had said in previous communications that we were expecting to put in about 20. After nomination day, when we informed him that we had 18 candidates, he replied that, because there were not 20, the Independent Labour party could not have an opportunity of broadcasting. The Ullswater Committee has made reference to what shall be done with regard to broadcasting during general elections, and I hope that in future the minority parties will have the opportunity of putting their points of view before the country and have at least the same opportunity that is given to the bigger parties. I hope that this will be treated seriously, because it is of the utmost importance in the working of democracy that minority parties should have proper opportunities of expressing their opinions.
Many people regard the British Broadcasting Corporation as a notable example of successful Socialism. We of the Independent Labour party, who regard ourselves as the real Socialist party, do not regard the Corporation as a Socialist concern at all. We do not think that there is any real Socialism about it. We consider that the broadcasting would have been far better operated if it had been operated as the Post Office is. There

would then have been responsibility for its working in th House of Commons. I cannot see how the superannuated politicians and lady friends of politicians are able to run the broadcasting better than civil servants would be able to do it. The governors do not inspire me with any confidence. Would the Minister, when he is replying, give us some information as to how these appointments are carried out. I noticed that when Lord Snowden resigned from the Government, Lady Snowden shortly afterwards ceased to be a governor. Those of us who were in the Labour movement with the former Prime Minister smiled when we saw that his friend Mrs. Hamilton was taking the place of Lady Snowden. Why should an organisation responsible for so great a service be in the hands of people appointed in that way?
In spite of what the report says, and in spite of the fact that no representations came to the committee, I think there is very wide discontent with the working of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think the existence of these relay programmes form a real criticism of the programmes which are supplied by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I know it is said that the relay service is taken because it is cheap, only 1s. 6d. a week, but in any street it is common to see radio shops offering receiving sets which will get programmes from nearly everywhere at 1s. 6d. a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how many years?") You can pay over as many years as you like. I have a set at 3s. a week, or 12s. a month—and it is much cheaper after a time—but I have seen sets offered at 1s. 6d. a week. It is one of the best sets that can be made. I am not going to advertise it. These relay programmes are a real criticism of the kind of programme supplied by the British Broadcasting Corporation. When listening to a British Broadcasting Corporation programme the impression produced on me is that I am in some slum dwelling and listening to some highly superior slum visitor anxious to do something for the improvement of poor people in the slums. There is far too much of that from highly superior people who are so anxious to improve everybody else.
What people want is to have entertaining programmes, programmes which they can understand. The public taste is often


a sound criterion in the case of a picture, and I think that is also true of broadcasting, and the fact that there is this widespread demand for radio sets which will enable them to get Continental stations as well as the home stations shows that people are after a good show and are not prepared to be dictated to. There has been criticism of the Director-General's dictatorship over the staff. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) formulated a very severe indictment of the system, and I think most Members will agree that the matter should be put right forthwith. A serious indictment could be made also with regard to the treatment of listeners. I should like to see the staff treated decently and listeners also treated decently. The Leader of the Opposition, in the part of the report for which he is responsible, put his finger on a vital spot when he said the governors should not all be drawn from the better off people or the higher social classes. That was a very sound criticism.
The whole concern appears to be run as though it were an instrument of the well-to-do. We should remember that the overwhelming majority of the people who provide the revenue, through the 10s. licences, consist of the working class and yet in the management of the organisation the working class is represented only to the most minor extent. It is run very largely by people drawn from other circles, who do not know the working class, do not understand the working-class point of view, but are seeking, evidently, to mould the working class. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that in future there shall be better representation of working-class interests, that more working class people are on the advisory committees. I have been looking at the names of those forming the General Advisory Committee. They are nearly all ancients; with the exception of George Bernard Shaw there does not appear to be one young person among them, and George himself is beginning to get to middle age. They are people with ancient ideas. There ought to be a bigger representation of people belonging to the working class. I should like to see someone there to represent the unemployed—someone who has been connected with unemployment problems, and who can speak for the unemployed with some

measure of authority. Much more attention should be paid to the fact that the customers of this concern, the people supplying the revenue, are very largely working class.
I notice that an admirable attempt has been made to open up different regions of the country. We have the regions of London, the Midlands, the North of England, the West of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I notice that the Ullswater Committee suggest that Wales should be a separate region. An hon. Member asks me what objection I have to that. I have none at all. I am not critical about it. I think it is a very admirable suggestion. But what I was going on to say was that after they had spent a lot of money in opening up these regions they then showed their wonderful skill by seeking to co-ordinate them all. With all those stations in existence, we are able to get only two programmes, National and Regional. That is a piece of absolute nonsense. There should be much more variety of programme when all those stations are working. If the British Broadcasting Corporation had utilised their machinery in the right way, they would not have had to come here saying: "For Heaven's sake let us try to close Luxemburg, or the International Broadcasting Station, or stop these relay people." I have listened to the international programmes, and it is certainly most irritating to be told that the programme is being supplied by So-and-So. I have never met anybody who liked to hear that the programme was being supplied by some hoot manufacturer, or somebody like that. but we put up with that discomfort because we get some sort of programme instead of the kind of thing which we get in this country.
Some little time before I came to this House I was a Presbyterian minister, and I object, as a religious man, to the way in which religion is treated by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I want religion to have a chance in this country, but the mawky, sentimental, holy-Willie stuff that is doled out by the British Broadcasting Corporation is setting people against religion over the length and breadth of the land. The way in which the Corporation have tried to shove it on upon every occasion, and that sort of Sunday tone in which it is read out, and all the rest of it, are most disgusting. Religion ought to have a chance,


but one of the most anti-religious influences during recent years has been the British Broadcasting Corporation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Corporation have tried to shove it down the throats of people. I am reminded of the time when I was a Presbyterian minister in Ayrshire, and a local picture-house opened up on Sunday. One of my neighbours came to me and said "You must approach the magistrates and get them to stop this opening on Sunday." I said to my colleague that if we could not do it by moral influence we were not going to invoke the law, and that we were not going to prosecute. If there was a public for the pictures, that public was entitled to have them, and we were not entitled to prosecute, and impose our religious ideas by the power of the State.
With regard to the week-end programmes, I would remind the Postmaster-General that people who have been working hard throughout the week are tired. Decent, religious people who get this kind of thing offered to them by the British Broadcasting Corporation want much more than a sermon by somebody like myself. [Laughter.] Oh, I can preach as good a sermon as most of the ministers or parsons in this country. That is one thing I would be quite willing to take on. I am a little bit vain about that. Another point is that on the Continent you can hear a whole opera, but in this country you get only one act of one of the operas. There is no arrangement about it. It should be possible to arrange, with all those wireless stations in existence, to give a whole opera and not simply an excerpt from it, a single act, cut out here or there.
Broadcasting should be under our complete control, through a Minister in this House. I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the committee, seeing that they are to retain this sort of bastard Socialism, that there should be a Minister who would take a large measure of responsibility with regard to the working of the Corporation. If there were such a Minister, there would be some safeguard for minority opinion in this country. Minority opinion should have the opportunity of broadcasting. I am thinking not only of political minorities, but of minorities in art and music as well. Full scope should be given for minority views to have expression. If

there were a Minister responsible in this House we should have the advantage of greater control, a democratic working of the Corporation and the bringing to an end of the intolerable dictatorship which has been imposed upon us.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. LIDDALL: I shall not attempt to follow hon. Members who have indulged in criticism of the administration, and I certainly shall not be tempted by the last speaker to discuss holy Willies or holy Campbells. I cannot for one moment support the Opposition, who would nationalise any private enterprise which is a paying proposition. I am especially interested in this subject because, in July, 1934, I presented to the House an Electricity Supply (Wireless) Bill, to enable wireless broadcast programmes to be transmitted over the ordinary electric light and power cables. Nothing further was done in the matter because the Government had appointed a Committee to go into the whole question of wireless. The findings of that Committee are now before the House. If the recommendations are adopted, it will be impossible for private enterprise to exploit not only the wireless re-diffusion system but the relay wireless services in this country.
Every one realises the importance of such a document as the report of the Broadcasting Committee, which was composed of eight men and one woman, all persons of distinction occupying high positions in the public life of this country. I hope that this anti-Socialist Government, which is opposed to confiscation and which stands for the liberty of the subject, will hesitate to adopt that part of the Committee's recommendations which says that:
The ownership and operation of relay exchanges should be undertaken by the Post Office, and the control of their programmes by the Corporation.
We must all agree with the Committee as to the urgent necessity in the national interest that the broadcasting service should at all times be conducted in the best possible manner and to the best advantage of the people. Let me say at once that the Relay Services Association of Great Britain would welcome the opportunity of co-operating with the British Broadcasting Corporation on relay programme policy in general, but there is a vast difference between co-operation and confiscation, and the existing licences


include the provision that, on their termination,
The Postmaster-General may require the licensee to sell to him such portions of the plant and apparatus as he may specify, at a price equal to the value thereof at the date of purchase as plant and apparatus in situ, exclusive of any allowance or compensation for loss of profit, compulsory sale, goodwill, the cost of raising capital, or any other consideration.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Do they not sign that provision?

Mr. LIDDALL: The hon. Member is quite right, but that is an express provision which the licence contains at the present time.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Where is the complaint if they have agreed to it?

Mr. LIDDALL: The complaint is that the licence can be terminated without any allowance or compensation for loss of profit, compulsory sale, goodwill, the cost of raising capital, or any other consideration. Who are these licensees, and what is the service that they render? The licensees are the Relay Services Association of Great Britain—not one particular combine of relay exchanges, but the whole of the relay services of Great Britain; and it may perhaps be as well at this time, when some Members may be present who were not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) explained what a relay service is, to say once again that a relay service is a system whereby wireless programmes are received in a central exchange, and redistributed by means of overhead wires to subscribers, who pay a small weekly rental for the service. At the present time there are approximately 340 exchanges operating under licences obtained from the Postmaster-General, and it cannot be too often emphasised, in view of some of the things that have been said, that in each case the subscriber pays his 10s. for a wireless licence. As the Ullswater report states:
The system appeals specially to those who find wireless reception difficult or who wish to avoid the expense of buying, or the trouble of looking after, a wireless set.
Only a loud speaker and a selector switch are required in the home, and programmes are relayed continuously from 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, chosen mainly from the transmissions of the British

Broadcasting Corporation. But the Ullswater Committee, state that they
have had evidence from many quarters that the proprietors of relay exchanges are in a position materially to damage the Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of material from foreign sources, selecting some parts and omitting others, and upsetting the balance upon which the programmes are constructed. Anxiety has been expressed lest the system should be used to disseminate advertisements or betting news from stations abroad, to colour the religious or political outlook of subscribers by a one-sided selection from home programmes, and to lower the level and lessen the impartiality of the broadcast service.
I say without hesitation that that part of the report is grossly unfair. The relay industry has always recognised its obligation to adhere to an impartial policy, and public opinion in areas where relay exchanges exist and operate will confirm the statement which I now make. The Postmaster-General has already an absolute veto on the relaying of any programmes, and he has exercised that right in the past. But the House and the Government must realise that the reception of wireless programmes is not, and never can be, a monopoly for any method. Postal, telegraph and telephone services are essentially different, and, if relay exchanges were handed over to Post Office control, it would only result in a Government Department being in competition with well established private enterprise. To such a state of affairs Members of the great Conservative party and Members of the once great Liberal party have always been entirely and utterly opposed.
But, apart from the question of nationalisation and the position of the relay exchanges and the radio manufacturers, what have the common people to say on this subject, because it is the common people of this country who are the main subscribers to our great relay services? Eighty per cent. of them are working men and women on a very low wage; 25 per cent. of them, possibly, could not afford a decent wireless set, and, but for the relay service, would be denied the pleasure, and what, indeed, in these days might well be termed the right, to have wireless in their homes. I have received a very great amount of correspondence on this subject from subscribers and, without exception, they are all satisfied with the service they receive and are opposed to this latest move to


bring about Socialism in our time. The Relay Services Association is willing and anxious to co-operate with the Corporation in their relaying programme policy in general and would not object to the Post Office supervising the technical side of the. business, but it asks for greater security of tenure and asks that its licences shall run concurrently with the Corporation's charter. On behalf of the subscribers to the service, and of thousands of people who directly or indirectly are finding employment in this new and important industry, I beg the Government to turn down the recommendations in the report in regard to the relay exchange.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I am wondering at this stage whether the Debate has really answered the hope expressed when it began, that it might elicit the views of the House as a whole on the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee. I am doubtful whether it has done that, because it seems to me that it has enabled Members to raise a large number of matters which are important but which are really not essentially identified, though they may be related to the recommendations of the report. But I shall probably carry the House with me in saying that the Debate that has taken place has clearly made the case, if it was not made before, for that paragraph in the report which recommends that there should be someone in the House available to answer for Corporation questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made some very strong statements with regard to staff questions and others have followed in the same way.
I hold no brief for the Corporation or for anyone in this matter, but I should like to ask the Postmaster-General, in case anyone should have an exaggerated idea of the matter, if he could give us, now or on some later occasion, the actual figures of those who have left the service of the Corporation in the last two or three years and the reasons why they have left. I cannot remember the figures, though I have seen them. I think that would restore the question to its proper proportions. The nature of some of the occupations within the Corporation is entirely different from those in

any other kind of public service. Those on the broadcasting side of the Corporation are in a position in which their faculties and their resources may become exhausted more quickly than in any other branch of life. Some of them have the responsibility of producing a public entertainment once a week, and sometimes oftener. Many producers make their livelihood by producing one or two shows in a year. Special treatment has to be found for some employees of the Corporation for this reason.
The general Debate has turned on matters in which Members are particularly interested, especially that of broadcast relay services. It was, perhaps, inevitable that special attention should be given to that, owing to the large number of people who are interested, and also to the kind of campaign that has been waged in connection with it. It was stated in the "Daily Telegraph" on 23rd March that a meeting had been held of the Broadcast Relay Association for the purpose of influencing public opinion, and also the opinion of Parliament, and a vote of £5,000 was made for carrying out that purpose.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: I know that that was published, but the matter was taken up with the newspaper, which admitted that its information was incorrect. There is no fighting fund of £5,000.

Mr. WHITE: I am glad to hear that that is the case. I have the extract from the "Daily Telegraph" and I have seen no contradiction of it. The hon. Member says that there was no vote of £5,000. I do not know whether he also says that the meeting was not held. Does he say there was no campaign of any kind and that no steps were taken to influence Parliament or public opinion, or do I understand that the inaccuracy of the statement was confined to the voting of £5,000? It is common knowledge that every Chamber of Commerce in the country has been approached to pass resolutions, and a resolution has been forwarded to the annual meeting of the National Association of Chambers of Commerce, and various other steps have been taken. All the branches of the Federation of Property Owners' Associations have been approached and they are writing to their clients to say that the suggestion that the Post Office and the


Corporation between them should control this new service as part of the national service should be resisted at all costs because this expropriation would apply to all property in future. We must have some regard to a campaign of this kind.
In assessing the matter Members should not only have in mind the recommendations of the Ullswater report but should also bear in mind the nature of the campaign that has been set on foot. I do not think that anyone has questioned or is likely to question that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a suitable instrument for carrying on this public service as trustees for the nation, and if the public and the House of Commons are satisfied that the policy is sound—I know that it is subject to criticism, but if it were not it would be the only human institution I know that is not—if the instrument and its main lines of policy are accepted, there is no cause why any section of broadcasting in this country should be withheld from the common concern.
That is the conclusion to which I have been led by careful study of the whole question and, as the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) pointed out, it is the conclusion to which all the members of the Ullswater Committee have been led. There was a suggestion that it might lead to a dictatorship. Any suggestion of that kind in this country is fantastic. We are not going to have a dictatorship in this country from the British Broadcasting Corporation or anyone else. It was pointed out that it might make things more difficult for certain impoverished people. Neither the British Broadcasting Corporation nor the House of Commons is going to stand for that. There is one technical possibility which impresses me very much, looking into the future, and that is the possibility that, owing to the development of the traffic in the air and the ether becoming overloaded, it may be that wireless will be driven back upon the wires, and in that event what would be the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of its systems? I would ask hon. Members to look into this matter still further, and I believe that they will be driven to the same conclusion as I have been driven to, that these things should be carried on by the

same instrument as trustees for the nation as a whole.
I have been rather surprised that there has not been more reference made to advertising during the Debate. I rather gather from the feeling of the House that the instinct of this country which, guided by the Sykes Committee and every subsequent committee, has considered and rejected advertising as part of the business of broadcasting in this country, has been sound and is accepted by the country. I have made some investigation into this matter, and I can find only one body of opinion in this country which is in favour of advertising, and that is the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. That is an important body which comprises a large number of important firms, but, as they expressly say, they do not ask that advertising should be permitted. All that they put forward is that the matter should not be closed; they do not want a final conclusion in this matter now. After some efforts to find out what public opinion is on this matter, I have come to the conclusion that even this body, whose business it is to advertise, is not suggesting that the Government should throw open the broadcasting organ of this country to commercial advertisers in any shape or form. It is true that in the confused atmosphere of a luncheon at the Savoy Hotel, they went somewhat further, but they were there simply as business men, not having studied the question as a whole. The Chairman adding that the 25 or 30 Members of Parliament who were present might be described as business men of the nation, and he had no doubt that having heard what was said they would agree that they had a job of work to do when they got back to the House.
The Ullswater Committee recommended that the charter should be renewed, and if one had to guess at anything the Government may do it is that they will renew the charter. The only question is for how long they may consider it wise to renew the charter. The opinion has been expressed that the British Broadcasting Corporation, having passed out of the experimental stage, might be expected to be for a period of at least 20 years, 10 years longer than the earlier charter. No one could say that the British Broadcasting Corporation are any longer in an experimental stage, except that a body like the Corporation must


always be one of perpetual experiment. But, looking at the matter from another and wider point of view, broadcasting is the most powerful education and cultural instrument which we now have in the world, and the effect which that is going to have on the national and cultural life of this people no man can predict. It is permeating the remote country districts, where people live quiet and sequestered lives, and they are hearing the same language, the same courses of instruction, the same music as are heard in the towns, and no one can foretell what its ultimate effect may be on the character of the people. I for one would be unwilling to leave any instrument wielding this enormous influence, whose effects must be unseen, for as long a period as 20 years. It would be a mistake.
Parliament should have the opportunity of reviewing this matter. But if Parliament and the Government wish to introduce into the British Broadcasting Corporation those elements of commercialism, advertising or anything of that kind, anything which is really incompatible with independent management, I should be loth to see the charter renewed for even five years. I have heard no one say, "Do away with the British Broadcasting Corporation and have Luxemburg or somewhere else in perpetuity." Other systems have been marred by the introduction of commercialism or some political influence, which has destroyed broadcasting as an instrument of culture and education.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: This has been a most interesting Debate, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), with whom I had the privilege of serving upon this Committee, I think that probably the most valuable thing that we have unanimously suggested is that the question of broadcasting should be one for Parliament alone to consider, at any rate once a year. At the present time all that happens is that it may be considered as one of the many questions which can be raised when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is being considered in this House. It is only right that this subject, which affects the lives of so many of us, should be discussed in this House, and that there should be a Minister responsible for the conduct of this great

Corporation answerable to this House upon questions of policy which affect that Corporation and the country generally. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead, I was struck by the fact that nobody has suggested that in the main there is anything wrong with the British Broadcasting Corporation. The country is to be congratulated upon the wisdom of those who set up that Corporation and which guided them in the form which that Corporation took and the powers which they gave to it. It is right that broadcasting should not be left entirely to private enterprise, and also that it should be divorced from being under the direct control of the Government of the day. In some countries it is still left entirely to private enterprise, and in other countries it is so much under the direct control of the Government of the day that no other opinon is allowed to be expressed except the opinion of that government. We know that that is the position in Germany and in other countries, and that it is not the position which is desired by this country.
We were fortunate in hearing evidence from various countries, and were glad to know that other countries regarded our system on the whole as being the ideal system and the one which they desired now to copy, and, in particular, it is the one, I understand, which the Dominions now desire. It is a great tribute to the work that was done by this House a little over 10 years ago and to the work of the Committee which was then considering the whole matter. It is also a tribute to the work done by the Governors of that Corporation and by the Director-General. They have guided in this matter with wisdom and prudence, and the country as a whole is under a deep debt of gratitude to them. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) I was rather surprised that immediately our report was issued to this House it was accompanied by a document which was issued on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I and my colleagues noted that they extended a certain meed of praise to us for the work that we did. I realise that we cannot all be great like the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Director-General, and we are grateful for this meed of recognition which has been shown to us. It is a little unfortunate that this should have been


issued by them at the same time as the report itself. It was right that this House should consider that report first, because we were reporting to a Minister on the instructions of the House, and it was a matter for the House to comment upon before any other official comment was issued.
The Debate has dealt with two points in the main. One was ably dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who rightly called attention to the fact that we had not received any evidence from any member of the staff of the Corporation. We noted that fact ourselves. I have one regret, looking back over the work of this very interesting committee. We held 35 meetings, heard 75 witnesses, and considered some scores of documents. We decided—I am afraid too early—to hear that evidence in private and not to hear it in public. I know full well the reason which weighed with us all. It was that probably people would speak more openly if they knew that their evidence would be confined to us and would not be published abroad. But, looking back, I think now that we were wrong and that it would have been better if the evidence had been given in public and had been available to all and sundry. I know that very often it is suggested that there is too much publicity with regard to cases in the Law Courts, but it would be a bad day if evidence could not be given publicly and be available to everyone. I believe that our report would have carried much greater weight with this House, and possibly with the Government and the public had the evidence we heard been available to all.
Undoubtedly, there was a certain amount of trepidation in our minds with regard to the staff. We were not quite sure whether everything was all right. We had no direct evidence. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have observed that we devoted 10 paragraphs of the report to staff questions, and quite rightly said that we consider it a most important matter and hope that those 10 paragraphs will receive the full consideration of the Corporation in anything that they do. Without a doubt, we feel that the staff should be protected by their own organisation, whatever form of organisation they are likely to have. That is

a matter for them to decide, but it is proper that they should have an organisation to speak on their behalf.
I had no doubt whatever that the question of relay exchanges would be a matter for controversy. Speaking for myself, I had never heard of relay exchanges until the evidence was produced before me by the Relay Exchange Association. I did not know that such a body existed. I signed this report on the evidence that we had heard, and it will be noted by the House that we were unanimous with regard to it. The Minority Report of Lord Selsdon differs from the rest of us only in the method which he thinks ought to be adopted in order to put an end to these private relay exchanges. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) called attention to the fact that what we had now suggested was Socialism in our time. At any rate, all of us, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, thought that some proper compensation should be paid to these people, but Lord Selsdon would not pay them any compensation at all. He thinks they are a dying industry and that another two years will see the end of the whole thing. No one has any right whatever to transmit messages along the wires, and these people have no right to do so unless they can get a licence from the Postmaster-General. Knowing that, they go to the Postmaster-General and obtain a licence. They obtain that licence upon terms. They enter into a solemn contract and are told the terms. They have now gone to the public and raised money amounting, I believe, to something between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000. I do not know whether everyone is aware of the fact that the licences terminate at the end of this year, and so far as they know they may not get them renewed. There was no guarantee whatsoever that they would be renewed.
If there was any goodwill in those companies, the goodwill has been given to them by the Postmaster-General granting the licences. Now, they have the audacity to come along and say: "Extend our goodwill for another 10 years." The hon. Member for Lincoln says: "At the end of that 10 years, whatever my contract may be, I shall want to be paid for all my services.


I shall want to have all my capital restored to me and all my plant, whether it is out of date or not, purchased at its full price and not at a knock-down price." That is the attitude they are adopting. Then we are told that they have been working in the public service. Let us be frank about these matters. Public service was not the primary consideration. Quite rightly, we cannot blame them; their primary consideration was profit making.
It is a curious position that they occupy in regard to their instruments and wires. They take a house or a room in a fairly congested area and there they have the apparatus which can extend the volume, from which they run wires into the congested area. They go round canvassing people and saying: "Would you like to have your wireless from us?" From these wires they run, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) said, tributaries to the houses. But before they can do that they have to get the assent of the municipal authority. The municipal authorities have discovered that this is possibly a source of revenue and some of these companies are now being charged £2,000 to £2,500 a year. We were told that in evidence by the companies themselves. Then they say that this is a service which is performed for the very poor, for the people who cannot afford to keep a wireless set. They tell us that the amount that the poor have to pay is 1s. 6d. a week and something like 6d. a week for a loud speaker. That is 2s. a week, or 104s. a year. In addition, 10s. has to be paid to the Post Office for a licence. That makes the total amount 114s., or £5 14s. a year, and the only thing that these people have at the end of the year is a loud speaker, which may not be theirs, because unless they continue their instalments even that may be taken from them. In the meantime these companies are having a monopoly within that congested area guaranteed to them by the municipality.
Some of these companies, I was able to observe, were not in a very strong position, and it might be that they would go bankrupt at any moment. When I asked what would happen then, the answer given to me was: "Perchance some other company in a more prosperous position might take over the plant." When I said that that would amount to a new contract and probably new terms,

they said: "That is the position." It is an intolerable position that this business is to be allowed to be extended into these congested areas for the private profit of these people alone. The curious position is that the broadcasting is done by the Corporation and the Corporation is not allowed to make a profit. The broadcasting is of no use whatsoever unless there is a receiving set or a relay system at the other end. The receiving set people and the relay people are entitled to make a profit, and yet their instruments would be no good if the broadcasting was of no use. The three of us held very strong views in regard to wireless sets because of that very curious anomaly. It is an extraordinary position that however good the broadcasting may be it may be ruined because the set is faulty, and it may be ruined by the man who is in charge of the room from which the relay takes place. There is a real danger there. These companies say: "We cater for the public." Do they? The programme is decided by themselves, and those who are receiving it from the relay wires have no control at all. They get what is given to them, either on the long wave or the short wave length. If they want to have anything else they cannot get it.
Take the position in regard to talks, quite apart from politics. Take any new thought, or take religion. I do not want to mention religious matters, but let us deal with religion as an instance of how the man in charge at the relay exchange can act. The man may be a very strong Roman Catholic who does not like what is going to be broadcast, because it affects his religion or it may be that he dislikes the Roman Catholics and that someone is broadcasting the religious thought of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, he gives some jazz music from somewhere else. That is a danger. We felt that it was right that the danger should be removed, and removed now before it has become such an important monopoly that it will cost the State more than it would cost them now to purchase it.
Lord Selsdon, on the other hand, took the view that the audio system is a dying industry. We had evidence of that fact. We were told immediately after the relay people had given their evidence that a much better system would be to use the high frequency along with the electric


light. We were also told by the experts from the Post Office that a much better system was along the telephone wires. Lord Selsdon said: "I am not interested in these relay exchange people. Their system is already out of date. I am perfectly certain that the Post Office either by using the electric light wires, the telephone wires or the telegraph wires, have a very much better system, and in less than two years these people will be wiped out and will be no use." That is what I have to say in regard to the relay exchanges. I do hope the Government will deal with the matter quickly. It is unfair to keep people waiting. It is unfair for them not to know what is to be their fate at the end of this year. Are they to be compensated? Are they coming to an end, or not? Whether or not the Postmaster-General can deal with that matter to-night, I do hope the Government will make up their mind in regard to it as soon as possible.
I was rather surprised that I did not hear more to-night from hon. Members with regard to our suggestions over the future of broadcasting from the Regionals. At the present moment there are very nearly 8,000,000 out of 11,000,000 houses which are getting the broadcasts. It is an extraordinary situation. The one place where people can be quite sure of having their grievances discussed properly is this House.
I am not sure that hon. Members will thank us for the recommendation in our report, but I am sure the public will welcome it. Having regard to all the advice in the Press and in the films to everybody "write to your M.P.", I hesitate to think what our post-bag will be like when a Minister is in charge and answerable in this House. At any rate, it is right that public opinion should make itself felt and this is the place where it should be heard and expressed. I hope that more attention will be paid by the Coropration to the development of the Regional. It is in the Regional that you get local culture, the totality of which makes up British culture. The culture of Lancashire is not the same as the culture of Yorkshire. The music which appeals to one does not appeal to another, and it is only right that the Regional should be given the fullest

opportunity for the expression of its own culture.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) that this is the greatest instrument for culture and education that has yet been devised. I look forward too. I am not at all sure that it is not the greatest instrument for the peace of the world, and I look forward to the time when broadcasting will not be merely a Regional or a National matter, but that it will be international, so that there may be a better understanding between peoples who will be able to appreciate each other's thoughts as they can appreciate each other's music to-day. I am not sure what will be the future of the Press, having regard to the development of broadcasting. It may be all right, but I am positive that 25 years hence it will not be in the form that we know to-day. It will take an entirely different form. The news will come through the broadcasts and it will come to the distant home on the hill just as soon as it comes to the home in the busy town. It is a wonderful instrument in the hands of this Corporation, and I am sure we have done right in recommending that the Corporation should continue its great duties for the next 10 years.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: I am sure the Postmaster-General is convinced that there is a tremendous amount of interest taken in this subject and he will gather that there is a strong opinion in the House in favour of some Minister being responsible to Parliament to answer questions concerning the Corporation. I want to bring to the attention of the House a recent happening which will show how important this is. Recently, there was broadcast a talk with regard to a decision of the South African legislature regarding native franchise. It gave rise to a considerable amount of protest, and it was pointed out that the statement which was given was entirely wrong. Not only did people of the Labour party make this complaint, but no less an authority than the "Morning Post," on 9th April last, in a leading article, attacked very strongly the action of the British Broadcasting Corporation with regard to this talk, and pointed out that the whole affair had been distorted and had given


a wrong impression of what had happened in the legislature in South Africa. On the attention of the British Broadcasting Corporation being called to the matter, they made a reply in which there was this amazing sentence:
The script of the talk was examined beforehand and was presumed to give a reasonable and unbiased statement of the facts.
If there had been a Minister in the House responsible for the Corporation, it would have been possible to have brought this matter before Parliament. The Postmaster-General will also be aware that there is strong support for the suggestion that the board should have on it a representative of that elusive person the man-in-the-street, and certainly some of the younger generation. One does not depreciate the work of the Advisory Committees. They have worked well. On looking at the names of those who compose the board one marvels that they have done so well, but they would have done much better if they had had a little assistance from people who are in close touch with various section of the community. In the matter of income this institution is peculiar. It is a national institution run on non-profit lines. The whole income should remain in the control of the British Broadcasting Corporation, save such necessary payments to the Post Office for services rendered. Having regard to what has happened to the Road Fund one feels a little nervous as to what might happen to this fund. It might be confiscated and the work of development hampered and crippled.
I would like to draw attention to the specific recommendations made by the committee that there should be further opportunities for political broadcasts, but I want to say that if that is done, every safeguard should be afforded with a view to seeing that such broadcasts are not used for the ends of any one party. They should be open on completely equal terms to all sections of political thought. I need only make a passing reference to the events connected with the general strike in 1926 to show what I have in mind, and I might mention the election broadcasts which took place in 1931, when, curiously enough, all the talks given were in support of the Government. They were on the Gold Standard, and the Government probably wished a little later that they had never been delivered.

They were, in any case, wholly partisan and biased. I would like, moreover, to suggest that all political parties should be allowed the same amount of time in which to put their views before the public over the wireless, and that all such talks should cease some three days before the election. I think there should also be frequent broadcasts on political subjects.
I suggest that in these broadcasts the British Broadcasting Corporation should not determine either the subject or the speaker, and that their duty should be concerned only with the allowance of time. It should be left to the people whom they represent—subject to a proper understanding—and the persons concerned to choose both those who shall speak on their behalf and the subjects on which they shall speak. May I suggest also that all discussions of economics should not consist only of the views of hard-boiled economists, but that those holding somewhat heterodox views should be allowed to express them?
The report also contains a reference to the news service, and I submit that as it is now it is wholly unsatisfactory. We ought not to be content merely with that which is supplied by the news agencies, but the British Broadcasting Corporation should set up its own news department. Although it would probably involve too great an expense to set up a news agency on the lines of the Press news agencies, the British Broadcasting Corporation might at least employ some competent journalists whose task it would be to collect the news. The Corporation ought not to rely entirely upon a selection of news supplied by the agencies. It is with some considerable trepidation that I have heard the suggestion that the discussion groups should be ended. These groups have had a considerable educational value in times past, and it would be a great pity if they were to be discontinued, for they supply a means whereby groups of young persons and others can take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the wireless to follow cultural and educational pursuits. There is pretty strong feeling against any endeavour to undermine or end these groups.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has referred to the conditions of the staff employed by the British Broadcasting. Corporation. Although I have been supplied


with a certain amount of information in that connection, I think there is little need to supplement the very admirable statement which my hon. and learned Friend made and which met with such general approval. I would like, however, to draw attention to two points which are mentioned in the report itself. The first point which I would like to make is the extraordinarily autocratic situation which has arisen in the British Broadcasting Corporation. For instance, a branch officer was officially reproved by the Director-General for having encouraged a state of good relations among the staff under him, because it was said that was unhealthy. I suppose he wishes to keep the staff in a state of perpetual friction because that is supposed to be good for it. I would like to know what the Postmaster-General thinks of that? He has come to a large service where there has grown up a considerable amount of staff representation and trade unionism, which had to be fought for in the first instance just as it seems it will now have to be fought for in the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think the Postmaster-General will bear testimony that he has found these organisations very helpful, that they have in no way hindered him, but have made his position easier and brought him into relations with the staff which he could not otherwise have obtained. Consequently it is nothing short of amusing to find somebody committing himself to the statement that it is very unhealthy to bring about good relations among the staff. The committee itself mentions this particular matter, and I make no apology for calling attention to it. The report states:
We have been informed that there is no desire for any form of staff representation and that the late Mr. Whitley, who would naturally have been in favour of it, came to the conclusion that there was no need for it. It has been represented to us that by informal means of consultation, together with the right of appeal to the Director-General or the governors, the staff can make known their views, higher officers can keep in touch with them and any grievances can be redressed.
Here I would mention that no one representing the staff gave evidence before the committee or was allowed to give evidence before it.
We cannot accept this contention as necessarily disposing of the need for

organised machinery. A similar right of appeal to the Postmaster-General exists in the Post Office, but has not precluded the need for staff representation. The large measure of freedom from direct Parliamentary control which is accorded to the British Broadcasting Corporation seems to us to increase this Reed. Such representation might take one of two forms: (a) the intervention of external trade unions, or (b) the constitution of one or more internal associations. …
For these reasons it is difficult to foresee any comprehensive solution on the lines of the first alternative (a). As to the second (b), we think that the Corporation should make it clear that it will provide all necessary facilities for any representative organisation, whether a single staff association or smaller bodies representative of appropriate groups, which its employés may wish to set up.
The Director-General then began to be a little perturbed, for since the report was issued a meeting of the staff has been called to discuss this matter. So far as the women's side was concerned, the staff was called together in sections, with only a, few hours notice, and addressed by the officials on the question of staff representation. The chief woman officer, supported by her assistants, talked vaguely about the difficulties of organisation, suggested that it would mean bringing in busybodies from outside to interfere with the pleasant personal relationships at present existing between officials and staff, and made it clear that the official side did not look kindly on any form of staff organisation. She then took a note in the open meeting on a show of hands on (a) those who wanted some form of representation, (b) those who wanted to hear more about it, and (c) those not interested. I should add that a hint was given that organisation would mean the abolition of privileges at present enjoyed by the staff. That gives point to the case raised by my hon. and learned Friend earlier and indicates that there is room for inquiry in this Debate. You cannot expect to run a service efficiently, if you have a certain amount of seething discontent beneath the surface, and it is pretty evident that that is the situation in this case.
I wish to make a passing reference to a subject which has, to a large extent, side-tracked the consideration of other portions of the report, namely, the relay services. In a long membership of this House I do not think I ever heard more


flagrant special pleading on behalf of particular interests than we have had to-day. It was done in a manner that is unprecedented and not in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons. We had people here who are directly interested and this special pleading was without any reserve. At least one would expect that there would have been some reserve but they showed no reserve whatever in pleading a case in which they are particularly and specifically interested.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) read a letter which he told us he had received from one of his constituents. We could all have produced similar letters because they have been circulated and, in my own case, I was curious enough about the matter to make some inquiry into these letters because I never received so many letters on any subject since I have been in public life. Knowing my division very well, I was rather concerned about the kind of letters which I got and I found on inquiry that the people who wrote them had been talked to by the collectors and informed that they would be deprived of this particular service unless they wrote at once to their Member of Parliament and got him to take action immediately. That is the sort of business that is being carried on—the business to which my hon. Friend below the Gangway referred as having been discussed at a particular meeting. Then I have had telegrams from people, including some whom I knew to be in receipt of public assistance. I began to wonder what was their concern in sending me telegrams about relay services. I venture to suggest that there is a little more in this than meets the eye and I say in no uncertain terms, that the House has a right to express strong disapproval of this pleading on behalf of special interests. I think there has never been a case so flagrantly pleaded on behalf of particular interests represented in this House.
With regard to the merits of the case, what is the position? These people, to use the term of my right hon. Friend, have stolen a wave-length to which they have no right and have exploited it and refused to give it up, as far as Luxemburg is concerned. We see the enormous profits that are being made for the private interest of those concerned in these companies. An hon. Member

talked of confiscation and the beginning of Socialism and all the rest of it. He did not tell the House that the licence is given free to these people; that they do not pay anything for it, and that they are exploiting it to such an extent as we know to be the case. I understand that profits of 50 per cent. are being made and a bonus of 50 per cent. is being given in some cases. No wonder there is a good deal of perturbation. Then I turn to the report itself, and I find that no less a person than Lord Selsdon, who was once the President of the Anti-Socialist Union, is actually suggesting that these people are not entitled to any compensation whatever, and that as and when their particular licence rims out, the whole obligation of the State has been met.
On the whole, I want to say that I think everybody must admit that we have been served excellently by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and that it will compare very favourably with any other broadcasting service that can be found in any other country. We are taking advantage of the report to emphasise and support those suggestions which can be made for the improvement of it and of the service, and particularly for the better relationship of those who are engaged in the service. I sincerely hope the Government will implement the report as early as possible, and above all that they will see that there is an opportunity to be able to discuss and raise questions in this House concerning tile Corporation by the appointment of a Minister whose duty it will be to have control over it, and that as soon as possible they will see that they have that control, and also of this relay service, before it has grown to such dimensions that it will be very difficult indeed to buy it out or get rid of it under any circumstances. As the committee point out in their report, the arguments for the absorption of this service by the State are almost the same as in the case of taking over the telephone and postal services themselves. It is a great public service, necessary for the public interest, and it is part and parcel of the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The last point that I would again emphasise is the necessity that the Corporation should not be crippled for funds, and that the money which it


receives should remain within it, so as to allow every opportunity for research and investigation and for fresh programmes, so that the very maximum of benefit can be given to the community.

10.22 p.m.

Major TRYON: I hope the House as a whole will at all events agree upon one point, and that is that the decision of the Government to consult the House before formulating any proposals has been fully justified by this Debate. Indeed, I think the only Member of the House who cannot be said to have greatly benefited by the arrangement is the Postmaster-General, because I am put in the position, which I announced at the beginning of the Debate, of being here to listen, to learn, and to consult with my colleagues afterwards, but, as I said at the beginning, the Government have been anxious to get the views of the House, in all parts, and to consider them immediately, without any delay, and I hope that soon there will be an opportunity for a further and, I hope, equally interesting Debate, at which the Government will be able to announce the proposals which they will put before the House after having had the advantage of this Debate.
I should like to begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for having initiated this Debate. I think he has done a great service, and that he has added to it by the most valuable contribution which he made to the Debate. I may say that by its tone he has influenced the Debate from beginning to end. I should like to allude to the position about the Ullswater Committee. In the first place, it was not a committee appointed by this House. It was one of the numerous Departmental Committees appointed by my right hon. Friend who at that time was Postmaster-General, to report to him, as is usual with Departmental Committees, and when I hear suggestions that the whole of these eminent persons appear to have become Socialists or that they made a report without rhyme or reason, I contend at all events that people who had 35 sittings and who examined 79 witnesses are entitled to have great consideration given by the House and by-the Government to anything that they

have put forward. Indeed, I think I may claim, from the long inquiry which they made, that it has enabled all those who have spoken to make some of their most valuable contributions to the Debate.
If one thing has been clear, it has been the valuable information which those Members who themselves sat on the committee have been able to give. It is a pity that in such a good-tempered Debate the hon. Member who spoke last should have made personal attacks on one or two Members who intervened. It seems to me that if a Member of this House has a special knowledge of any one subject, and is possibly concerned in it, it would not be right to disfranchise his constituents and silence him and so deprive the House, which wants all the best information, of the information which he can give. One thing which I think the House would ask—and it gets it in full measure—is a disclosure from the Members concerned that they have some commercial connection with the subject under discussion. I do not wish to make anything of a debating point, but if hon. Members are never to speak on subjects with which they are concerned, and possibly financially interested, there are a good many other subjects upon which we should lose a great many valuable contributions, especially when co-operative societies are under discussion.
I hope that the House will agree with me if I express the debt which the Government and the House owe to this Committee. It has done an enormous work in an extraordinarily interesting subject. As they are all supposed to be Socialists, I will give their names. First, of course, is Lord Ullswater, a distinguished former Speaker of this House. Then there was the leader of the Opposition, and it was extremely good of him to give up so much time to the work of the committee. Then there was Lord Selsdon, who has not been regarded hitherto as a conspicuous Socialist. There was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Clement Davies), who made a delightful speech, and the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor). There was also Lady Reading, and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who also made a most valuable contribution. These are greatly respected people of


wide experience and varied political views, and if they have come to an almost unanimous conclusion on a large number of topics, it means that their report is entitled to very full and careful consideration by the Government and the House.
I am not going into all the points, for, in doing so, I may in some way disclose either my own view or the intention of the Government, which would be much better put as a whole, as I hope it will, at an early date. I think that the attitude of the public towards the British Broadcasting Corporation is typically British, that is to say, that the public grumble a good deal at the Corporation, but if anyone were to suggest that it was not the best arrangement for broadcasting in the whole world, they would be extremely indignant. People talk of nouns of multitude, such as a wisp of snipe, or a gaggle of geese, to which, I believe, someone added a grumble of Britons. The general attitude is that people all want something different, and it is impossible to meet all their views, particularly on the most contentious subject of all, and that is music. This is a subject on which we have to look ahead as far as we can.
Nobody knows what may be the enormous scientific and engineering developments of the near future in broadcasting. The whole future is uncertain. The air is becoming filled with messages of every kind. I believe that in my own constituency the Brighton police use the wireless to assist them in arresting offenders—I hope other Members' constituents. Aeroplanes need wireless, ships need wireless, and there are all sorts of overlapping or closely-approaching wave lengths. The whole question is one of extraordinary scientific difficulty. What we have to do is to look as far ahead as we can, and that is very difficult.
Let me take the points in the Debate in the order in which they were presented. I have already expressed my high admiration of the speech with which the Debate was opened. The question of the staff has been alluded to by various hon. Members, and I will only say that it is not a question which has been raised for the first time in this House. It has already been very fully looked into; the question was not a discovery on the part of anybody here. We are going into the

question very fully, and I may say to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that I cannot make an exception to the general statement I have made, that the Government will announce their whole programme at a later date. If I had his gifts of sarcasm and wit I should, perhaps, have been tempted to refer to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol rebuking dictatorships; but I will not go into that now.
I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating two hon. Members on their maiden speeches, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hulbert) who made an excellent speech and the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), who made an excellent and clear speech on a highly technical matter. I am sure that we were also glad to hear the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) though his maiden speech was made some time ago. There is one idea that I should like to correct. There is an idea about—I am not disclosing the Government's attitude—that this committee has made a proposal under which nobody will be able to listen to anything but the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is not the proposal of the committee, and I think it should be known that what they recommended was that it should be incumbent on the British Broadcasting Corporation to give our millions of listeners every chance of listening to any foreign programmes. That ought to be made clear, because it is an important point, and a good many people do not seem to have realised it.
On the question of advertisements, I do not think we have absolutely gathered the united opinion of the House. The first thing to consider is whether we want advertisements on the air or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have spoken so often on tariff questions in the old days that I am tempted to point out that the present arrangement is something like Protection reversed. I can understand people who think there ought to be free competition between two nations, and there are some, of whom I am one, who think some advantage should be given to producers in the home country. The present arrangement is the exact opposite, because the British Broadcasting Corporation are forbidden to broadcast advertisements but foreign stations can


broadcast them, and they get money out of England for broadcasting to our people. I do not think that is fair to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I shall be very glad to know that the House does not as a whole, as I think I may say, favour advertisements. One hon. Member suggested that we might have the opportunity of listening to these broadcasts in the smoking rooms and other rooms of this House.
If some of these who are so keen on the foreign relays of advertisements were to turn on occasionally to what you get on those stations, perhaps they would realise that the programme is not altogether free from defects. I have a short extract, which I shall shorten as much as I can, of the kind of thing you get on Sunday from some of those relay stations. I find that the idea, or so I gather, is that you play a tune and endeavour to get that tune associated with the particular form of advertisement, or with the article or thing which you are advertising. The idea is ingenious, but I hope the principle does not apply to the whole of the programmes, because you get some rather curious results. An advertisement for a football pool, for instance, is immediately followed by "Onward, Christian Soldiers." There is an even more sacred hymn which might be left out of the programme of advertisements. Then there is the prison scene from "Faust," which is used in the advertisement for syrup of figs. Perhaps the House will appreciate most from the legal point of view another advertisement for football pools, which is followed by "You can't do that there 'ere." Finally, a particular kind of cheese is associated with a tune of which I have never heard. It is called the "Drunkard's Doom."
We might call upon the British Broadcasting Corporation to produce something on Sunday that is a little better than that. I find myself delighting in the position of agreeing with somebody from whom I always differ, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who put the view that if there were one extremely bright programme on Sunday most of the difficulties might be avoided. It is excellent that there should be two programmes, and if one programme were brighter we should not listen to the programme with the advertisements for cheese.
A good many other points were raised. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) raised the question of relays. I wish more Members had been present to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover. There were not so many Members in the House as I should have liked. I should like to say how very sorry I was to miss the speech made by the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), who made a most valuable contribution in a previous debate in connection with broadcasting. I think I can say for the Government that, conscious of the advantage which they have in the speeches which have been made from all parts of the House, they will reconsider the whole of this problem immediately. I am looking forward to a further debate, when I hope to be able to speak with greater freedom.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLASS VII.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £191,055, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE: £95,000 has been voted on account.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: Before the House passes this Vote, I think we are entitled to a little information from the Minister. The expenditure in respect of alterations to old and the provision of new Employment Exchanges is by no means inconsiderable. I understand that considerable alterations are to be effected, and in some instances, I believe, new exchanges are to be erected. In round figures, something like £300,000 is involved in new works, alterations, additions and purchases. For some time past there has been a considerable amount of unrest among those who have from time to time been compelled to use the exchanges. The discontent and unrest have been of such


proportions and so manifest that even organisations like the Trades Union Congress have on several occasions been compelled to give consideration to the subject.
At its annual congress about three years ago, the General Council of the Trade Union Congress was asked to approach the Minister of Labour and endeavour to persuade him to see that his Department provided more adequate accommodation at the labour exchanges, including conveniences for the use of those who were compelled to attend those exchanges; and, for the purpose of giving some adequate data to the Department, the General Council of the Trade Union Congress requested the various trades council throughout the country to get for them a census of the accommodation that was lacking or available in the exchanges throughout the country. The census was taken, and it revealed that one-third of the replies received indicated that arrangements were satisfactory, the majority replying that the accommodation was inadequate. Twenty per cent. reported adequate accommodation within 100 yards of the exchange; 15 per cent. reported that the nearest accommodation was from 400 to 500 yards distant, and in some instances it was as much as 2,000 yards distant. In some cases the only accommodation available either for men or for women was in a railway station or a public house. Fifteen requests have been made to local authorities to provide or improve accommodation but these local authorities replied to the effect that such responsibility was in no sense theirs but that of the Department responsible for the exchanges.
That occurred in the constituency that I represent. The Exchange failed to give the necessary accommodation and this continued for four to five years until eventually the local authority was compelled to embark upon the expense of erecting accommodation for both men and women within close proximity. That meant that that local authority had to put that convenience on a spot that was by no means the best, considering the locality as a whole. The local authority felt that the Government at least should have been prepared to meet this expense. After a considerable amount of correspondence they felt that it was impossible to convince the Department, or the Government, that the responsibility should rest

upon their shoulders. We feel on this side that, when these circumstances exist, the accommodation should at least provided when these alterations are taking place or when a new building is being erected. Theatres, cinemas and such like buildings are compelled by Act of Parliament to provide these conveniences. If we were an authority other than Parliament ourselves, we should undoubtedly be proceeding to compel Employment Exchanges to provide similar accommodation but, owing to it being a Government Department, we find ourselves confronted with the position that all we can do this evening is to make an appeal to the Minister in the hope of persuading him to insist on such conveniences in the plans of these buildings. As recently as March last the Ministry of Labour appeared to be content with accommodation at Newcastle 100 yards from the Exchange. The users of the Southampton Exchange had to walk at least half a mile. At Acton expenditure is to be embarked upon amounting to £7,000. I should like to know if any accommodation is being provided there. At Harrow an expenditure of £5,500 is to be embarked on. In Stepney there is to be an expenditure of £30,700. In the West End of London—the West End Exchange, I presume—there is to be an expenditure of £33,500 this year and there is an anticipated expenditure of £67,000.
Now that I have cited these instances perhaps the first Commissioner of Works will give us some idea of the amount of work that is to be embarked on, and whether it has become or is likely to become the policy of the Department to see that this accommodation is provided where such large expenditure is embarked on. We feel that the time has arrived when we should have a definite policy in this connection. We can no longer expect local authorities, who are already overburdened with local expenditure, to provide the needs of the Employment Exchanges. There is work in the programme at 88 different centres and the Vote is in anticipation of building 47 additional centres. This is a large programme, and we feel that before the programme is embarked on to too great an extent the House ought to know what the policy of the Department is, because the ordinary amenities of life are surely among the things which should commend themselves to the Department.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise a question or two regarding the provision of exchanges, more particularly in the district I know best in the West of Scotland. I remember that when I was serving on the local authority in Glasgow after some time we came to the conclusion that the authority which provided libraries was not the best to provide lavatories, and I would much prefer that lavatories should be under the control of the local authority but adjacent to the Employment Exchange. That is my own personal view, but I would not be dogmatic about it. My own view was that the City of Glasgow, which ran a large number of lavatories and trained attendants for that kind of work, would fit them out much better and would provide better accommodation than possibly the Department would do. Accommodation should be provided near at hand and the Minister of Labour should make some contribution to the local authority for so doing.
One of the things about which I am concerned is the provision in Employment Exchanges of some kind of first-aid equipment. I have had cases brought to my notice where women have suddenly been taken ill, and at a large number of Employment Exchanges there is little or no equipment to deal with such cases, unless it is voluntarily provided by the manager himself. The First Commissioner of Works should go into the question of providing proper equipment at exchanges for this purpose. I am glad to note that the First Commissioner of Works is building new exchanges at a number of places. This matter raises another problem. In one or two cases where exchanges are being built, tenants have been dispossessed of their houses.
In the city of Glasgow in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) the First Commissioner of Works is proceeding to build a new Employment Exchange and poor people are being warned that they must leave their houses. The local authority say that, as they are not being cleared out because of a slum clearance scheme, there is no responsibility placed upon them to provide alternative accommodation, and, on the other hand, the responsible Government Department say that they have

no control and that they must go to the local authority. While I am anxious that new buildings should be provided, I hope that when the First Commissioner of Works is dispossessing poor people of their houses, he will work in conjunction with the Scottish Office in Scotland and with the appropriate office in England, with the object of seeing that dispossessed tenants are provided with houses before being compelled to leave their present abodes.
One of the exchanges in my division is an old wooden building. I saw one in Newcastle recently, and I have seen such buildings in London. They have served their day and generation, and they have not always been a very good investment for the Ministry of Labour. They quickly depreciated, and the building in my division is in an unsatisfactory condition as far as the paintwork is concerned, and I believe that if any private owner allowed his property to get into such a condition, the local authority would have something to say about the matter. The Minister ought to adopt the policy of building an exchange that can be well equipped for this particular purpose. All over the country I have been shocked with the Employment Exchanges. Recently, I was in the court of referees at Bath. The room where the cases of the unemployed were tried was fairly comfortable, well lighted and warm, but the poor people who were waiting for their cases to be heard were shivering in a little passage outside. That seems to be a common thing all over the country. It is true that in the new exchange in the centre of Glasgow some attempt has been made to solve the problem. Of course, we all recognise that the applicant must of necessity wait, but he ought to be given conditions under which he can wait in something like decent comfort. He ought not to be asked to sit or stand in a miserable passage or in a badly-lit room, with no heating accommodation, while a decent room is provided for those who are to try the case. There ought to be proper waiting rooms for those who have to wait for their cases to be heard.
I would urge the Minister to press forward with his building programme. The unemployment figures may go up or down, but we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that a very large number of people will still utilise these buildings, and with


the coming into operation of the Agricultural Workers' Act the problem will be aggravated. What preparation is the First Commissioner of Works making for the provision of exchanges in places where up to now an exchange has not been necessary but where an exchange will be necessary in consequence of the insurance of the agricultural workers? Formerly, the number of people affected would not justify the provision of an exchange, but the numbers in future will justify the building and equipping of a new exchange. What arrangements are being made to overcome this new difficulty? We have been told that the hon. Member who raised the last subject from the Opposition Benches performed a public service, and I think that the hon. Member who has raised this subject has performed no less a public service.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I protest against this Vote coming on at 11 o'clock, when there is so much that requires explanation. It is not fair to the House, nor is it a good way of conducting business. These Votes for the exchanges are numerous and call for explanation, particularly in regard to the large amounts that are being spent this year and why so much is being left over for a future time. Take the case of Hackney—I am choosing it haphazard—where £12,000 was spent up to March, 1936, leaving a further £8,000 to be asked for at a later period. Is it that the work represented in the £8,000 cannot be engaged upon at the present time, or is it that the Government are waiting for another year before undertaking further work which might well be done at Hackney? I should like to know whether in the erection of the buildings at Hackney special provision is being made for the juvenile side and the placing of young people into employment? If so, is that business being conducted in the same building as the work in regard to the adults who are unemployed? I should like to know whether the amount spent upon Rugby will complete the work on that particular exchange? It is strange that a sum of £200 should be left for another year as against an expenditure of £4,000 up to the end of March, 1936.
What does the £101,000 for the London West End Exchange represent? Is it to deal with the areas making trade, and where is it situate? What provision is

being made for young people who will have to attend here so that they will not be left standing in the street? We ought to have an explanation why so much work is being left to later years. There are Manchester, York and Yeovil, to mention a few. I cannot understand why more work is not being undertaken for completion at an earlier date. There does not appear to be any indication where the buildings for the Unemployment Assistance Board are situate, and I hope that we shall have some explanation of the £261,000, and where the buildings are to be erected. There is a sum of £376,000 for buildings in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Does that money come from the fund or is it paid direct by the Treasury and not counted as a debt against the Unemployment insurance Fund?
May we have some explanation of the work being undertaken for the Board of Control. What are the buildings at Moss-side upon which a sum of £3,000 is being spent? I was under the impression that the Board of Control does not itself undertake expenditure in connection with places for mental defectives in districts like Moss-side. Then, what are the £400,000 proposed works at Moss-side? For what purpose is this money being asked? Again, in regard to Rampton for which the board is responsible, what is the reason for the enormous amount of work being undertaken at Rampton? Is it because some of the young people are to be removed from other institutions? I trust we shall have an explanation of these matters and that in future the Committee will be given more time to consider these questions.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I think most hon. Members who visit Employment Exchanges will appreciate that perhaps the worst type of public building we have in this country is the average Employment Exchange. I assume the reason for that is that Governments in the past thought that unemployment was a temporary problem, and that a wooden shack, a corrugated-iron building or any old structure would do. I am sure that everybody now realises that unemployment is not a temporary problem, and it is therefore imperative that the First Commissioner of Works should realise that as many scores of thousands of men have to stand in in-


clement weather awaiting the convenience of the manager, there ought to be provided for them buildings as suitable as are normally provided for other persons who have to attend at public buildings.
I do not know whether I can hold the First Commissioner of Works responsible, but what I am going to say, has a significant bearing on what he has to do. Therefore, through him I put it to the Minister of Labour that this may be attributable to a policy, which has been adopted for many years, of making the manager of the exchange shoulder the responsibility of finding a building and engaging his own clerks. That course is very prevalent in many parts of the country, particularly where unemployment has not been very severe.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must raise that matter on the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I may challenge your Ruling, I would say that these places will have to have suitable buildings for Employment Exchanges in substitution for the buildings that are obtained by managers.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must realise that this is a matter primarily for the Minister of Labour. He must challenge the Minister of Labour on it and if the Minister accepts his view, then no doubt the First Commissioner of Works will have buildings of that type.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I put it to the First Commissioner of Works that he ought to have an examination of some of the buildings, such as that at Bridgend, the town in which I live, in order to ascertain whether they are suitable? Unemployment is not decreasing, and I therefore hope the First Commissioner of Works will ascertain whether or not such buildings are convenient for the purpose for which they are used. I would like also to reinforce the question which was put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Geographically about one-third of my constituency is agricultural in character, and under the new Act a large number of agricultural labourers will come under the unemployment insurance scheme. It will be necessary to provide Employment Exchanges for them at convenient places. I should like the First

Commissioner to tell us—if not to-night, some other time—whether this matter is being considered and whether we can have an assurance that. agricultural workers will have convenient buildings, where they can interview managers.

11.15 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I think I ought to explain the nature of this Vote. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) endeavoured to raise questions which might be raised on the general Vote for the Office of Works, or for my salary, or on the Ministry of Labour Vote, but which are difficult to deal with, within the strict limits of the Vote now under discussion. In this connection may I also reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) as to the circumstances in which this Vote is always taken? It is the invariable custom, the moment Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair on the Civil Estimates to take one or more of the building Votes as they are called, which are usually only a fraction of the total Office of Works Vote, in order that progress may be made with actual work during the financial year, instead of having it held up for purely technical reasons until the main Estimate is voted by the House, which is usually done under the Guillotine in July. That is why one or two Votes are put down, and it is usual to endeavour to meet the wishes of the Opposition in the selection of the Votes to be put down in order that they may raise questions in which they are interested. But it has never been the custom to raise questions general policy on these Votes. That he s usually been done on the main Office of Works Vote which includes my salary and the salaries in the Department.
I shall endeavour to deal seriatim with the questions which have been raised, and I begin with the hon Member for Willesden (Mr. Viant), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I was interested to hear him use the Front Bench "we" in the phrase "we on this side," because he adopted a line of policy to-night in regard to Employment Exchange buildings which is at variance with the attitude consistently adopted by Miss Bond-field and the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) when they were at the Ministry of Labour under the late Labour Government. I would point out


to the hon. Member that in this matter I am merely an agent for the carrying out of the work according to what the Ministry of Labour decides. They say where they want an exchange and what they want in the exchange and it is my job to carry out the work. It is not for me to lay down policy. As the hon. Member will see, practically the whole of the Ministry of Labour work under this Vote is covered by Appropriations-in-Aid. Practically the whole cost falls either on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, of which the Minister of Labour is the guardian, or on the Unemployment Assistance Board. Therefore, I am free to spend money only in so far as it complies with the policy of the Ministry of Labour. It is most important to make it clear where the Labour party have always stood hitherto on this point.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that Labour Exchanges are now being built out of the Insurance Fund?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes.

Mr. KELLY: Have I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, that Employment Exchanges are being built and the cost of them is being taken from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, from contributions paid by the men, women and children who are engaged in industry?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will look at the Vote, Class 7, item 3, he will see. There has been no change in this for many years; it is part of the Statute, part of the cost of administration of all benefit payments and the like. This is entirely a, building Vote. It is part of the administrative costs of the fund. That is what I have always understood. I have no money to spend as I like, except as the Minister of Labour directs me, any more than when I build post offices or buildings for other Government Departments, the cost of which is recoverable by Appropriations-in-Aid. That is the position as I have always understood it. It is very curious, looking back on this very question that has been raised to-night from the Front Opposition Bench, namely, these conveniences, that invariably in the past it has been the Ministry of Labour which has made the reply. I see that Mr. Egan, in February, 1930, asked the then Labour Minister regarding conveniences in con-

nection with the Birkenhead Exchange. Miss Bondfield's reply was:
Experiments in the past have proved that the expense of providing such accommodation and of maintaining it in a sanitary condition would be prohibitive. There is no necessity for it at exchanges if proper public facilities are available, and this is a matter for the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 27th February, 1930; col. 2386, Vol. 235.]
Again, in July of the same year, in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Muff), on the question of lavatory accommodation at the Hull Employment Exchange, Miss Bondfield replied:
It is not the practice to provide lavatory accommodation for applicants at Employment Exchanges. … In the case of the Hull Exchange, I am informed that there is adequate accommodation provided within 50 or 60 yards of the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1930; col. 2373, Vol. 241.]
In reply to Mr. Allpass, who asked for adequate and suitable conveniences for both sexes at the Bristol Employment Exchange, the answer was:
For reasons which have been given in this House, it is not the policy of my Department or of the Ministry of Labour to provide conveniences for applicants attending Employment Exchanges. The plans for the Bristol Exchange have been discussed with the local employment committee and arrangements have been made to meet cases of emergency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1930; col. 429, Vol. 245.]
This reference to emergency provisions brings me to a letter addressed by Miss Bondfield to Dr. Marion Phillips, M.P., as secretary of the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women's Organisations dealing with the resolution that was submitted to the Labour Government on this question by that body at a national conference of Labour women. Miss Bondfield's secretary replied:
In the circumstances the Minister feels that it is not unreasonable to expect applicants to rely upon the use of public conveniences provided by the local authority."—
whose duty it is to provide them under the Public Health Acts.
Having regard to the centralised position of exchanges generally, in populated districts, the absence of public conveniences within a reasonable distance of the exchange suggests that the provision of public conveniences is inadequate. In such a case, the question is one for the local authority. As regards sudden illness on the part of women applicants, it is the


practice of exchange officers to permit the use of the official rest rooms and lavatories, but such rooms could not be made available for all applicants without very large additional expenditure. The Minister is not satisfied that she is justified in incurring the responsibility and expenditure which would be involved in the provision, maintenance and supervision of public conveniences at Employment Exchanges.
That was the policy and practice of the Labour Government, and for the Opposition to raise this question on this occasion when that was their practice when in office is, I think, really rather hard.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Did the Ministry of Labour at any time make any contribution to a local authority because a convenience was largely for the use of those attending an exchange?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The duty of the local authorities under the Public Health Acts is to provide adequate conveniences at places where the public require them. It is not the duty of the Ministry of Labour, or my duty as their agent, to provide them for the public in Employment Exchanges. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is right. It is impossible to have overlapping provisions in respect of public conveniences, one lot being supervised by the local sanitary inspectors with their trained staff, and another lot supervised by my Department with a new team of inspectors going up and down the country inspecting and managing them. I have described what has been the consistent policy of the Labour Government when in office. I take the view, as a matter of fact, that that was too rigid a policy. I have discussed this matter with the present Minister of Labour, and we are prepared to carry out a new survey. The fact that a public convenience provided by the local authority is within easy reach is a consideration which has to be borne in mind in selecting a site for an exchange.
I think that a further attempt must be made to bring home to local authorities their responsibility under the Public Health Acts in regard to the provision of such conveniences. To provide them in Employment Exchanges would involve many complications, especially in the new type of exchanges with their considerable waiting halls, and the new types of

shelter which we are erecting. I should be sorry to see it become the general practice to provide conveniences inside exchanges for all and sundry to use. There would be an inevitable tendency for them to become public conveniences used by the ordinary general public, and that would be most undesirable. Accordingly, what we have determined, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, is that provided overlapping with the local authorities is avoided (and with this end in view, there shall be a new survey of the position) the problem is to be surveyed exchange by exchange, and that is now being done. I think I have said enough to show that I am sympathetic. I regret that the hon. Member for Ogmore said that the Employment Exchanges ire very bad. I am rather proud of a good many of my new exchanges. I think they are rather good buildings.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am not complaining of the new ones.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: But this Vote is for new buildings, and I think that some of them are not only a great improvement on those which have been erected or which have been used in the past, but are a positive addition to some of our towns. As regards what are called the amenities of the new exchanges, we realise that in spite of all the efforts of the exchange officials to arrange for people to attend at regular times there are apt to be queues in certain places, and I am endeavouring to get weather shelters erected. We have one or two specimen types in the new exchanges, both internal passages and external shelters along the walls, and there is also a new type of waiting room. We have to guard against these becoming places to which people who have no business at the exchanges resort, but we realise that the exchanges have to be made worthy of the functions they perform.
The hon. Member for Gorbals asked whether first-aid equipment is provided and the answer is "Yes." First-aid boxes and appliances are being supplied to all exchanges, new and old. Some of the new exchanges are pretty elaborate buildings. The reason why part of the money was voted last year, part is to be voted this year and part will be voted next year, is that they are elaborate buildings and take some time to design


and to build. The selection of the site is one of the most important things. It is clone by the Ministry of Labour in conjunction with my Department, and I think we are getting very suitable sites. Occasionally we replace old huts on the same site by new buildings. At Manchester the new headquarters exchange will be erected, at the cost of many thousands of pounds, on the site of the existing hutments. It is inevitable that in such a case it will take some time to build, because you have to build it in bits; as you build you can pull down more of the hutments, and you go on in that way. I passed the design of the building only the other week and it will be a great asset to that part of Manchester. The hon. Member for Gorbals also asked about the new exchange in Glasgow. It is true that we have been offered a site in Pollokshaw road. I understand that we have been offered that site free of restriction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Last Thursday, when I went down to the Division—I do not make any reflection on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Sir J. Gilmour) who used to be a distinguished Member of the Cabinet—a number of people were there is a state of distress because they had been put out of their houses. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will certainly inquire into it. I was informed that we had been offered that site free from restriction. It would certainly be most convenient from the point of view of serving people resorting to the employment exchange in that area. We could make a good job of that site. I hope that the difficulties will not be insuperable and that we shall get that site and be able to proceed with the work there.
Two hon. Members asked about agricultural areas. I realise that new provision will have to be made and it is extremely difficult for us, with our present information, to know exactly where the incidence of agricultural unemployment is likely to be. Naturally there are places where we have a definite demand, as in East Anglia, and we have in contemplation there the creation of the provision elsewhere, for instance, at Bridgend, although I have not understood that there was much agricultural

unemployment in the Vale of Glamorgan—

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I should think there is a great deal there now. I am anxious to know whether preparations are being made to meet the requirements of the area.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We had in contemplation the necessity of providing considerably increased accommodation for this purpose. I will make inquiries as to whether it is anticipated that there will be a large number of new people resorting to the Employment Exchange, and find out whether that is one of the places to which we ought to give attention.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether the present exchange is really convenient for the number of people who have to attend

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I certainly will.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member for Rochdale asked me a large number of conundrums. I have answered one or two of them already. There has been a considerable amount of censure about the Hackney case and the Dalston Lane exchange which should be completed by 1st January next year, and completely equipped during the early part of the next financial year. This is inevitable; a system of annual finance always complicates any explanation. The hon. Member asked me particularly about the large London West End exchange. That will be just off Oxford Street, behind Bourne and Hollingsworth's, and not far from the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street. Admittedly it will serve the needs of a large number of insured persons, particularly women and juveniles. It is an expensive site; the site alone cost over £30,000. It will necessitate special construction, in view of people resorting there. It is a matter into which I am going personally.
The item for the Unemployment Assistance Board is for expenditure incurred by my Department in providing premises and equipment for the Board, and all these expenses are recoverable from the


Unemployment Assistance Fund. On the passing of the Unemployment Assistance Act my Department had to provide premises for the Board's headquarter staff and for the district and area offices throughout the country, and we have provided one headquarter office, 28 district offices, 16 sub-district offices, 244 area offices and 48 out-stations, all rented. As the Act is a, new one, most of these premises are temporary accommodation, and we shall no doubt replace them with permanent buildings in due course.
With regard to the buildings under the Board of Control, by far the largest matter is the Moss Side institution, near Liverpool. It was formerly a military hospital, and later a Ministry of Pensions hospital. In 1933 it was occupied as a State institution for the care and treatment of mental defectives of dangerous or violent propensities, when the accommodation at Rampton became exhausted. Rampton is full, with over 1,000 inmates, and the Board of Control did not consider it desirable to make Rampton larger, so that Moss Side is to be developed towards an ultimate maximum of 1,000 inmates. Undoubtedly these institutions are bound to be expensive, because they deal with a very difficult class of patients who require very special treatment, necessitating the employment of a, very large staff; some of the inmates are dangerous both to themselves and to other inmates. The situation of Rampton is remote, and accommodation reasonably near the institution is difficult to obtain, and therefore we have to provide staff housing; a considerable amount of the expenditure under this Vote is for staff housing as well as for the institution itself. These cases are among the most difficult types of cases for which the State has to provide, and, although the amount is admittedly large, I think it is probably the only way of dealing with this most difficult class of cases.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: A very serious point was raised by the Minister when he told us that the money that he is receiving with regard to Ministry of Labour buildings comes from contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This astonished all of us who have been engaged in this work since its institution, and it will astonish the country. The

Exchanges Act is dated 1909, before the introduction of unemployment insurance, and provision was made that this should come under the Board of Trade Vote, and later under the Ministry of Labour Vote. Now we find, if the statement is true—I feel that there must be some mistake—that the money for the erection of Employment Exchanges is being taken out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I should like to vote against this Motion for that reason only.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. To take the concrete example of the new Manchester Exchange, in so far as it houses Government offices, that is not recoverable from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but, in se far as it provides for an essential part of the administrative expenses that fall either on the Unemployment Insurance Fund or the Unemployment Assistance Board, it is recoverable. That is why the gross amount is larger than the Appropriation-in-Aid. The Appropriation-in-Aid which figures in these Estimates is the recoverable part in respect of the administration expenses of the fund and of the Public Assistance Board, which have always been understood to fall upon those funds. The Government itself is one of the tripartite contributors to those two funds. In fact it is the sole contributor to the second fund.

Mr. KELLY: I am referring entirely to the first fund, which is subscribed to by the coppers of the workers and the so-called contributions of the employers and the State.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Under the Act the cost of administering unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance are paid for out of those two funds. Why does the hon. Member say the so-called contributions of the employers and the State? Why not be fair and say it is a tripartite contribution to those funds? Why distinguish between them in any way? The administrative costs are borne on that fund and appear in this Vote as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. ALBERY: I should like to know whether consideration is given to the question whether unused sites could be available when new buildings have to be erected. Is his Department responsible


for surveying the whole position of the Departments that have sites on hand?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The primary consideration in regard to Ministry of Labour buildings is the convenience of the people who are likely to go to them. The next consideration is to avoid building the Exchange on a main street or in the middle of a shopping centre. For instance, the West End Exchange is not in Oxford Street, but just off it. In the selection of sites both the Ministry of Labour, for whom I am acting as agent, and my own Department have a say, the Ministry of Labour in regard to the suitability of the site for their requirements and my Department on questions of cost of site, the possibility of getting a site and whether the site is of such a shape that we can erect a workmanlike building for the purpose.

Mr. LOGAN: Am I to understand that the tripartite contributions account is debited as an administrative cost with the cost of the buildings?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In so far as it is a pure Employment Exchange it is debited, but not in so far as it is also offices for other Government Departments.

Mr. ALBERY: There are certain ideal sites in the possession of different Departments. What I want to know is this: Before Any other site is acquired for Government buildings, does the right hon Gentleman's Department inquire about those sites?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going outside the Vote.

Mr. ALBERY: I should have said: "Before any new site was acquired for Employment Exchange purposes." I presume the procedure would be the same in either case?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If there were such a vacant site in a convenient centre we should take it, but we must consider whether it would be convenient before we take any old vacant site instead of a site which is really needed for administrative purposes.

Mr. ALBERY: What I wanted to know was the precise responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman's Department in regard to sites. There must be some Department which has some regard to what

sites are available among Government Departments, otherwise there is no co-ordination.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me a case or an example of a vacant site in the possession of any Government Department.

Mr. ALBERY: There are examples which occur to one, but I will not press the right hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Can the Minister inform us what is the position at the Longton Employment Exchange now? An old factory is being used. Is it considered that suitable accommodation will be provided for all who desire to sign on by a building to cost the amount decided on by the Minister?

Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £81,840, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas.''—[Note.—£46,000 has been voted on account.]

11.56 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: I notice that there are new works and alterations in respect of the Paris Embassy to the amount of £5,262, and an expenditure of £9,000 on the Athens Legation for improved accommodation by the provision of additional bedrooms, etc. The expenditure proposed to be incurred on the Paris Embassy must, of necessity, mean that a considerable amount of work is to be done. We should like to know the nature of the work and the method to be adopted in carrying it out. Is it to be put out to contract to be carried out by a British firm or a French firm? Is the work at the Athens Legation to be carried out by a British or an Athens firm? What is the nature of the work at Cape Town amounting to £27,500, and by whom is it to be done? We should like similar information with respect to work at Pretoria amounting to £15,500. I hope that the First Commissioner of Works will be able to give the information for which I have asked.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The original system of central heating provided at the


Paris Embassy was only partial and was obsolete. The improvement has been deferred for many years owing to the inevitable disturbance that would be involved. The Paris Embassy is a picturesque old house formerly occupied by Princess Pauline of Borghese and has old associations. The improvement could no longer be delayed, and work was put in hand last summer. It was found that extensive deterioration of the structural woodwork had taken place, and it was necessary to incur considerable additional expenditure on the work. Provision is required to cover the expenditure of money on this work. All these contracts have to be carried out by local workpeople in the various countries where we have embassies and legations. Athens is, I agree, a formidable business. The existing Legation building has for many years been considered inadequate and unsatisfactory, and in 1929 a new site was purchased for the erection of a new Legation. Successive Ministers were opposed to the idea of building on this site, and as the district in which it is situated has failed to develop on the lines originally anticipated, it is to be disposed of at the earliest favourable opportunity. Having regard to the high cost of any alternative site and the present financial conditions in Greece, it is proposed to improve and renovate the existing not too satisfactory building pending the return of more satisfactory conditions. The explanation about bedrooms, I agree, is inadequate. The scheme contemplated was the complete reconstruction of the Chancery, the renovation of all the kitchen and service quarters, the provision of three additional bedrooms, the installation of electric light and heating, and overhaul of the drainage system, which is badly needed. I am surprised that we were going to get out of it for £9,000. It is virtually a new building so far as the offices and out-buildings are concerned.
Regarding Cape Town, the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will answer any detailed questions. The High Commissioner of South Africa is now the representative of His' Majesty's Government in Great Britain, and he has

taken over duties formerly performed by the Governor-General and his staff in looking after Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland. He has to have offices in close contact with the. Union Government at Pretoria and Cape Town, and we have to acquire new sites and new offices. The new office at Cape Town is in connection with the proposed demolition and reconstruction scheme initiated by the South African Government. The High Commissioner's office is at present accommodated in 83, Parliament Street, Cape Town, and is the property of the Union Government. The Union Government intend to demolish these premises and the whole of the upper part of that street, to make way for new and much larger South African Government offices. The site which we have accepted for our new office building comes within this scheme of development, and the new building will be in harmony with the new South African Government handing. That is the cause of the expenditure there.
The provision for Pretoria is required to cover one-half of the £10,000 to be paid to the Union Government for a site in Pretoria which forms part of the estate where an office is required for the representative of our Government in the Union, in close connection with the buildings of the Union Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

BUCKINGHAM'S CHARITY INDUNSTABLE BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday Evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.